This topic contains 65 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  cbx550f 10 years, 8 months ago.

  • Author
  • #34735


    No matter how you look at it, it still harder to survive a round than to get a kill. Even if it’s based on luck. It takes more luck to survive the round.

    What if it were real? You and others were really in those tanks for 1 round, 12 shots. Wouldn’t you too go for the most dangerous opponent? Which could lead to a weaker opponent surviving the round. But that doesn’t mean it will always happen. Just that the possibility of someone not so good, can sneak a win. I think it is a good thing. Why change it?



    Oooooooooooops! You are absolutely correct Ebo that 3 wins = 1 kill would be quite horrible. It was supposed to be the other way around.

    I meant to say that I wanted a Kill/Win point ratio of 3:1

    The reason I want it lowered is because of the luck factor. If you get bad positioning accomplishing rnd wins can be quite impossible no matter what skill level you are at. If you have a somewhat realistic chance of ending up winning from getting many kills I think that would add to the strategic depth rather than reducing it.



    @ebonite² wrote:

    @bigbear wrote:

    … refactor the kill/win score ratio to 1:3.

    1 kill to 3 wins? Why bother winning then? I’m playing less and less because of the increasing focus on killing at the cost of strategy. Making one (1) kill worth the same as three (3) wins would drive me away completely. Scorched is becoming more and more like FPS’s, where “frags” are the status symbol, winning is determined by who gets to what weapon first, and the game winner is determined by luck, timing, and, eventually, hacks.

    Ebo, imagine an FPS where the winners were determined by who was alive at the end with a slight edge to who had more kills… Pretty lame, a bunch of ppl hiding and no one shooting unless they got bored. That is what happens when the focus is on wins.

    There must be a balance. This is a shooting and killing game, I’m going to say again, like I’ve said in the past. A game score based ONLY on killilng would be even better than a balance. Staying alive longer goes hand in hand with getting more kills. Doesn’t that make sense?

    I really have no problem with rewarding the survivors, but in my mind whatever reward there is, shoudl be split evenly between all the round winners, thereby incouraging more kills/action.

    None of this reduces any stratagy, it just makes things more intense. Fuel, shields, etc. will always be a good means of aquiring more kills.



    Different genre of games, Boy. FPS’s are meant to be shooters. Skill is measured in killing of others, and death means nothing because you come right back. Scorched is artillery. Again, killing others is the goal, but here death is something to be considered because you don’t come right back. With that in mind, I think surviving should be rewarded.



    Yes, but not SOLELY rewarded. The setup now is very balanced, I like it. 🙂

    I rarely ever go for a round win specifically. I happen to win a few of them by going for the most kills I can. I win the majority of the games I play.

    Point rewards for kills do a great job of preventing losers from just hiding, and forces the skilled players to work that much harder for points. I don’t think that the complaints about the clearly lesser skilled players accidentally winning are heard any more.

    (yeah yeah, and I hear willis coming to say (:P) … “shame on them for letting lesser skilled players win, how skilled could they be then?…” to which I say and agree with some of the above… “luck” and many other random factors contribute to wins and therefore kills reduce the random factor by rewarding more true skill points)

    not sure there is much more to say, but I suppose that I don’t mind one bit if the Beginners server is set for high points to round wins. Which was the original reason for resurecting this thread. 😉



    @boy wrote:

    Yes, but not SOLELY rewarded. The setup now is very balanced, I like it. 🙂

    That is a matter of opinion, not a fact. 😉 😛

    Anyhoo atm I agree that there is not much to say since we are not exaclty any closer to a consensus and as usual when it comes to these types of “political” issues very few take an interest. At least too few to come to any other conclusion that the discussion was rather pointless and things will be left exactly as they were.



    FWIW – It doesn’t matter a whole lot to me how game wins are determined, really.

    Being, at heart, a stat whore, I know that game wins have nothing at all to do with stats. Furthermore, I tend to be dead after the first shot or two, so either way, I just go for kills most of the time. To be sure, on occasion I will fuel around, buy defence, or whatever, in attempt to stay alive to win a round or two, but since ethat usually fails, I just go for kills. 😉

    Alright, since some of you are saying, “Oh come ON, cbx, just give an opinion!”, I’ll say this: Although I don’t mind the way it is, and wouldn’t really care much if it was changed in either direction, I lean in favour of making kills mean more than they are (or making round wins less). My only argument against this might be that if round wins are worth too little it makes rounds themselves a bit useless. (Not completely, I know).

    However it gets changed, if it does, doesn’t really matter to mee; I’ll still suck. 😛


Viewing 7 posts - 61 through 67 (of 67 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.