RazY70 wrote:Part of the justifications I read for introducing the new system is was that players did not understand the previous one. Well, now they don't seem to understand the new one, and we've come a full circle. Great!
Both systems aim to achieve a similar outcome and both do a reasonable job at it. However, I don't like it when a system strips away game elements which worked perfectly fine for 14 years. I like the ticket and ticket bleed mechanics and the extra layer they add; I like that death is factored into the system and has an impact (even if marginal); I don't like the continuous trend of dumbing things down system which wasn't overly sophisticated to begin with.
This. I get that many people didn't and still don't understand the past or new ticket system, but while ikjadoon states facts of the new conquest system and makes logical arguments about its pros, he unreasonably blasts anyone that makes a counter argument or tries to prove why the past system was better. The new system is quite linear and doesn't take deaths into account, we all understand that. But the old system had much more potential in different games.
Natetendo83 wrote:So looking at your BF4 history I see that you got the Revive ribbon 37 times. That means you revived a minimum of 5 people in that match. That's 5 tickets saved by just you in that match. Now what say 5 other teammates also got a revive ribbon. That's now a minimum of 30 tickets saved in a match. Tell me, what would the game lose by having that in the game? If it doesn't make a difference most of the time then why not add it? But what about those times when it DOES make a difference? Those games that are so close that a handful of revives actually turned the tide?
This is why we want the old system back. Not to completely alter how the game plays, but to add more depth and elements to how a game could potentially pan out. Imagine those 30 revives and now stack onto that those 30 people collectively went on to kill 50 enemy players after they were revived? That's now an 80 point swing because you saved 30 tickets and cost the other team 50.
This is why I like the original system. But ikjadoon misreads the initial comment because he has his head so far stuck up his ass that he goes on to write a page-long reply to Natetendo83 about how stupid he is for thinking that revives +1 a ticket to your team.
Despite having a pretty good OP (Which, to be honest, the credit goes to the data miners, not him for stating what is obvious. Those of us here that played the alpha and/or beta already understood the new system just by playing a few matches and seeing the in-game results. Joining an empty server helped alot, too. We didn't need to data mine.) that guy is so fraking ignorant and smug in the rest of his replies.
Placeholder for thoughts on the reddit post regarding the "weakest links throwing the game."
How do we look at this? Should the players that are really good at PTFO AND KTFO (killing the frak outta) enemies not be rewarded - the same way the crappy players are... well, crappy?
So, with the old system, PTFO & KTFO players get rewarded really well - both playstyles, separate and together, affect tickets+score.
With the new system, PTFO & KTFO players still get rewarded - the enemy team just isn't punished
as much. If you are doing both, you're probably capping a lot of flags AND stopping enemies from getting near them/capping them back. However, killing doesn't affect tickets, just score.
Is it better or worse that if you're really good at BF then the enemy team has less of a chance to win (if your kills take away their tickets then they have less overall round time to cap back because they're wasting tickets)? If deaths don't directly change tickets then the enemy doesn't have to worry about dying as much as they do capping back.
Personally, I like having deaths deplete tickets. Sure, you'll have a slight increase in games that aren't so close, but you'll have a greater variety in how teams switch leads and close games that don't only depend on caps.
ikjadoon also has two other arguments I have a huge problem with.
1) His argument for "kill-farming" is snipers that kill unskillful players. Okay, AS FAR AS I REMEMBER, in ALL of the past BF games, SNIPERS WEREN'T THE ONES GOING 50-2 AND TURNING THE TIDE OF THE GAME. It was players that were really skilled in vehicles, and on the even rarer occasion, very skilled shooters (you can be fraking perfect with your decisions and firefights but most likely you'll die more than twice even if you're nearing the top of the scoreboard as infantry-only).
2) His argument about how DICE simplified it for us since many players didn't understand the previous ticket bleed meaning since deaths don't count and tickets go up it's like CoD Domination. "But since it's CoD Domination, us BF veterans shouldn't have a problem only worrying about PTFO and not KTFO enemy team." I understand this logic, but put a little more thought into it. We've played BF for a long time, we understood the old system, and we LIKED the depth of the gameplay that affects tickets.
This really only affects competitive/organized gameplay, and the maybe 10% of pubby games where the majority of people know what they're doing, but GC is where I play most of the time. I like to take the GC part seriously in that everything I'm doing is getting my team closer to winning, whereas in pubby games I really don't care if I win or lose I'm mainly having fun fooling around or try-harding (in which case I just care if I got to the top of the scoreboard, not win/lose).