@Trokey66 wrote:
@Forkbeard84not saying you hypothesis is wrong but it is not the only reason for the zerg.
Another one for me is survivability. In a game where stats are increasingly seen as sign of a good and hard epeen, people are becoming increasingly risk avoiding in my opinion.
Why risk getting smashed at flag B when flag C is safer because half the team is there.
Stats, especially kill/death related stats are a big driver in the way people play.
So my hypothesis is valid then? Per your question above, if the point scoring system is changed, so that many more points are given for defending flag B, more than half the team will be defending flag B. Your risk of getting smashed will be actually be lower for defending B. If they change the point system to reward defending, that's what most the team will do and therefore even the risk averse guys will start defending. Right now the point system and the lowest risk/highest reward are for zerging. But if they change the point system to reward defense, that's what most of the team will do.
Does it make sense to you that more points should be awarded for taking B, losing B, taking C, losing C, Taking B, losing B, ad infinitum? Or does it make more sense to award more points for taking B and defending it the entire time? I think many more points being rewarded for simply holding and defending an objective will help stop the zerg.
@Forkbeard84 wrote:
@Trokey66 wrote:
@Forkbeard84not saying you hypothesis is wrong but it is not the only reason for the zerg.
Another one for me is survivability. In a game where stats are increasingly seen as sign of a good and hard epeen, people are becoming increasingly risk avoiding in my opinion.
Why risk getting smashed at flag B when flag C is safer because half the team is there.
Stats, especially kill/death related stats are a big driver in the way people play.So my hypothesis is valid then? Per your question above, if the point scoring system is changed, so that many more points are given for defending flag B, more than half the team will be defending flag B. Your risk of getting smashed will be actually be lower for defending B. If they change the point system to reward defending, that's what most the team will do and therefore even the risk averse guys will start defending. Right now the point system and the lowest risk/highest reward are for zerging. But if they change the point system to reward defense, that's what most of the team will do.
Does it make sense to you that more points should be awarded for taking B, losing B, taking C, losing C, Taking B, losing B, ad infinitum? Or does it make more sense to award more points for taking B and defending it the entire time? I think many more points being rewarded for simply holding and defending an objective will help stop the zerg.
Players have found easy 'strategy' to keep one flag captured. I hope they would make solo captures as fast as group captures so behind line working players can drastically change the course of battle from those who keep zerging. Also getting rid of capture rate difference where losing team have the advantage (was introduced in V, don't know was it ever patched out).
@Teal_Pipo_FredoDice did minimize or remove the 'catch-up'-system in BFV. Because of players not wanting it.
But it did actually work and after it was removed the balance of BFV went totally out the window (it was bad enough, even with the system in place).
It was perhaps a 'cheap' mechanic, but it still worked better than anything else Dice has done to balance games.
We will probably get some kind of SBMM in BF6 and this could be a total disaster for the game (depending on the metrics of course).
Doesn't matter if I end up liking it or not, I'm always excited for a new Battlefield game. My favorites are still BF3/BF4 so knowing that BF is going back to modern times makes me happy. I didn't really like the last 3 games but maybe this one will reignite the passion that my friends and I once had for this franchise.
I've always been open minded when it comes to the setting of the games and I'm glad that the devs created games set in another era because I know that a lot of players enjoyed them. I don't think they're bad games, just not for me and I'm ready for something new.
With BF3/4 I played almost everyday for years but since BFH I barely played at all and I can't describe how much I miss playing Battlefield with my friends. At this point it might be too late to revive my platoon... the spark might never come back but I still hope that it does.
I hope that the devs are having fun creating the game and I can't wait to see what's next for Battlefield!
@DisguisedMike wrote:...
With BF3/4 I played almost everyday for years but since BFH I barely played at all and I can't describe how much I miss playing Battlefield with my friends. At this point it might be too late to revive my platoon... the spark might never come back but I still hope that it does.
I hope that the devs are having fun creating the game and I can't wait to see what's next for Battlefield!
That you are coming online here to post is a great sign that the flame is still on! ;o)
