Kill/Revive scoring system

[Fungwu]

In Vanilla Bf2 when you shoot a guy you get a kill even if he is revived, although your target will not get a death. It would be nice if this was added into Project reality with the additional caveat that if the revived player is killed again within 2 minutes it won't count as another kill for the player that shot him the second time.

The reasoning here is simple. It is not realistic, or fun in any way to kill a person, and then watch their lifeless body for up to 5 minutes to make sure they do not come back to life. If I shoot a person and I know I will get a kill, I do not really care if he is revived again, and since I won't get a 2nd kill if I shoot him while he is being revived there is less incentive for me to shoot at medics and their patients.

I think the beauty of this solution is that it does not penalize anyone, the player who gets shot will not face anything different, and the player who shot him will be properly credited for killing an enemy.

[snooggums]

You only get a point for your team if they aren't revived, so the current system shows how effective your fire really was. I think the scoreboard updating as fast as it does makes it too easy to tell if the enemy gave up.

Plus K doesn't really matter, and who cares if you shot five people if they were revived 4 minutes later and your kills had no effect on the tickets?

[Qaiex]

This game isn't about getting 1337 stats and a high killscore.
You're supposed to make sure that whoever you kill does not get up again, that is your job.


The devs won't change the game to accommodate the people who don't play it the correct way.

[Fungwu]

"plus Kills doesn't really matter, and who cares if you shot five people if they were revived 4 minutes later and your kills had no effect on the tickets?"

You bring up one point I didn't address, whether a guy who gets revived should cost a ticket, I think it should, which would make your kills accurately reflect how many tickets the enemy lost.


"This game isn't about getting 1337 stats and a high killscore.
You're supposed to make sure that whoever you kill does not get up again, that is your job.


The devs won't change the game to accommodate the people who don't play it the correct way."

Uh, I really don't know where to begin here.

Most maps are won when the enemy runs out of tickets and you lose tickets in part by dying. Therefore killing a lot of enemies and having many kills and few deaths helps the team directly by reducing enemy tickets and indirectly by making enemy operations less effective.
For instance killing an enemy with a HAT who is about to shoot an APC not only gets you 1 kill, but saves your team potentially 12 tickets from being lost, and additionally benefits your team by any soldiers that APC is then able to kill or any objectives it is able to accomplish.

"You're supposed to make sure that whoever you kill does not get up again, that is your job."

Well, only when you are fighting zombies.

"The devs won't change the game to accommodate the people who don't play it the correct way."

Um, there is no "correct" way to play a game, other than to have fun. It just doesn't seem like much fun to shoot a guy, then shoot him again 30 seconds later. I'd rather just shoot him the first time and move on.

Let me tackle this problem in two directions.

From the realism angle obviously people who get shot, and are critically wounded do not fight again in 20 seconds, if ever. Wounded soldiers are usually medivaced in some way, and thus not only do you lose the fighting power of the casualty, but also the fighting power of however many soldiers are required to transport the casualty to safety. Giving a point for critically wounding a soldier would reflect the combat power lost.

Reviving is not realistic, but in a realism oriented game it provides a sort of fudge factor to promote teamwork and allow for situations where a wounded soldier needs to be taken out of danger, whereas without reviving he would just be abandoned. I think allowing players to be revived, but punishing their team with a lost ticket and rewarding the player who shot them with a kill fits into the realism focus of the game without also damaging the positive aspects of the revive system.

No matter how much realism you put into a game it is still a game and exists solely to have fun. Shooting medics as they prone dive to stab a casualty with an epipen is almost a mini game unto itself, and can be pretty amusing. But ultimately guarding corpses is just quite silly. It is like dropping C4 from a helicopter, it is fun but it really detracts from the immersion factor of the game when you have to worry about people returning to life after having their head blown off.

On a side note:

People on the forum mention frequently the same sentiments seen in this thread. Namely, that this game is not about killing people or getting a good score. As a counterpoint let me just say that this is a war game, a competitive war game, and war of course is about killing people. The greatest excellence in war is to win without fighting, however the next best is to kill the enemy without dying. Thus I myself try to kill as many of the enemy as possible dying as little as possible while doing so. This I think is the best way you can help your team win and the best way to enjoy the game as much as possible.

Some people think that teamwork is the most important thing and killing the enemy not very important at all. To them though teamwork usually ends up as a bunch of guys running around next to each other, rather than a bunch of guys running around separately. To me teamwork is very enjoyable, probably what makes this game in my opinion the best out there. However teamwork is a means to kill the enemy more efficiently and not and end unto itself.

From the way people talk in this forum it sounds like they are playing a game of Tee ball where they don't want to keep track of how many runs are scored so that no ones feelings are hurt and no one gets a big head.

[snooggums]

Actually, the objective should be the objectives: flags and caches. The problem is that it is too hard to start a bleed and once one is started it turns into a landslide, so it just ends up as a death match most of the time and a wipe out the rest.

[alberto_di_gio]

It is kill score and should show if it ends with a death.

[Rudd]

I do think its frustrating for people to kill 5 people then get nothing

However, I think the current system means lonewolves get less points, so I think its ok.

(as lonewolves vs 6 guys might get 3/4 of them, but the last members of the squad generally win, and revive their mates)

[-=TB=-Tobakfromcuba]

i see only one point for the threadstarter regarding realism: IRL ppl dont get revived after receiving riflebullets, or at least they are not capable to continue the battle.
for the gameplay its as said before, the current system suggests teamplay.

[Nick_Gunar]

You can make up for it with the fact that a lot of players give up pure and simple (they don't wait for the medics).

Usually, when I shot down a loner, I wait for a "possible" medic to revive him then I shot the medic (but I didn't shot the deputy).
When it is a squad, I inform my squad, we get rid of them and we secure the position (from another spot of course) just to be sure.

But yes, you have to be lucky sometimes if you kill 5 people and you get 5 points (I usually have only 1 ^^),...

[darkside12]

Originally Posted by [R-CON]Rudd

I do think its frustrating for people to kill 5 people then get nothing

However, I think the current system means lonewolves get less points, so I think its ok.

(as lonewolves vs 6 guys might get 3/4 of them, but the last members of the squad generally win, and revive their mates)

Hence, bringing out the fact that PR is based on(drum roll)....TEAMWORK!