Reverse Tickets

[pvt. Allen]

Originally Posted by (Adjective Here) Chicken

Thats why I suggested the 2-3 minute timer once a team has no tickets left. I hate playing a round where a team has 10 tickets left, but the bleed is picking away at the other team until it loses, and all the while, both teams are still fielding 25-30 men. If all of the things I said were put together, it would look good (granted on paper). It would probably take extreme playtesting, but it could be made to work.

Yeah, I do remember exactly such case, where I basically crushed oppposing team alone (my two team members inactive, while there were around 5 enemies) and won the Gold Beach-1944 map in a way in reality it would be impossible. But then, I had extreme ammount of luck (talk of getting into vehicle second before hearing bullet hitting place where I was) and the server was populated by little ammount of players. In course of normal games I have never encountered such case, so I doubt it's actaully worht the risk and work as it might bring more problems.

[Strumtrupp]

I'd say away with tickets all together.
Objective based maps FTW!
They are kinda logical. No general thought 'ok drop these guys here and some over there and lets see what happens..'

[{TDB}Chicken]

Originally Posted by Komrad_B

What for? I just don't see the point of this. I just don't see the point of extending the misery of the losing team.



He WILL spawn. And his team WILL lose. You have to understand at least half of the players in public servers are mindless robots, you can be sure at least one of them won't think about the tickets and spawn anyways, cause his team to lose its last ticket.


Usually, in FH, the attacking team has much more vehicules, and is bleeding. Number of troops doesn't really affect who attacks and who doesn't.



I predict an horrible round. Seriously, to have a 3 to 1 kdr the germans better be good, and the soviets better be patient. If its "easy" for everyone to kill 3 russians in such a map without dying as germans, then being a russian on this map would be awful, and we can already predict all score whores would obviously go axis.

I would support changes in spawntime depending on the team in certain maps, but DO NOT affect the number of soldiers playing at a single time.

Also, would you have, say, one less soldier per flag you own, or would that be something like 10% less? Also, wouldn't that restrict needlessly the already restricted number of places in a server? Wouldn't that be stupid, to pay a server a few more dozen bucks a month so that it can hold more people, only it have it not being used at its full capacity? And how fun would it be to be on the waiting end?


Let me say in just a few words what I think about all those suggestions :
They bring little (I seriously DO NOT see the point in them!), probably aren't even possible to implement and would screw balance out of the window. Perhaps if you would tell me how you can think each of your ideas would affect the game in a good way I would reconsider my opinion, but as it is now, I can't see the good of it, and only the obvious bad things.



Exactly what I was thinking. Is that just... changing for the sake of changing something?

I already explained just about everything you refuted. It might help to read more than the first 3 words of every argument. For instance, the guy who just joined the team will not spawn because, among other things, I suggesteed a senority system, maybe the guy with the best KDR. Also, I'm not changing things just because I can. I presented what I believe are substantial changes that could be made.

Also, I made note that some of the things mentioned might not be possible when I said...

well i might be pushing things here, because I don't know how much the engine can do

...And where were you when I said...

Ok I see what happened. I said that the bleed would limit your spawn. I meant this in a way that every ticket you bleed away is one soldier, not that a given team can't spawn as many people.

...No one is losing a spot to play, servers are not going to lose any entertainment value for their money.

To be completely honest, these things don't really change that much as far as game mechanics. It just makes the tickets more relevant to the situation. If the attack is suicidal, say charging up the river bank at stalingrad. Or a suicidal defense during Operation Bagration where the Germans just didn't know that some 2.3 Million russians were amassing. So they stood and fought.

Last, I think you are thinking very FH1-mindedly. Sure, its pubbie nature to want to kill without any thought. I'm sure that many of these same players will continue to play this way. However, I think that FH2 is going to force a little more teamwork to be largely successful, unless you are some kind of ungodly killer. That's why I believe that this can work.

Unless I'm reading your posts wrong, it seems like you're not making clear contradictions to my points. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry.

[Komrad_B]

After reading your post, I still don't know why :

-The round should continue even the team has lost until everyone is dead.

-The good thing in having one point taken out every time you spawn instead of every time you die.

For instance, the guy who just joined the team will not spawn because, among other things, I suggesteed a senority system, maybe the guy with the best KDR.

This doesn't work at all! Think about it :

Team has 1 ticket left. "Roger n00b" spawns. Team loses 1 ticket. Team loses.

What does seniority have to do with this? How can a "senior" prevent "Roger n00b" from spawning?

...No one is losing a spot to play, servers are not going to lose any entertainment value for their money.

Then this is the very same system we have right now... If a team is not bleeding and has 400 tickets left, then you can presume they will be able to spawn and lose about 400 people before losing.

To be completely honest, these things don't really change that much as far as game mechanics. It just makes the tickets more relevant to the situation. If the attack is suicidal, say charging up the river bank at stalingrad. Or a suicidal defense during Operation Bagration where the Germans just didn't know that some 2.3 Million russians were amassing. So they stood and fought.

I still don't see how it make things more revelent. Seriously, if I have 500 tickets I have 500 tickets. Wether I lose one when I die or spawn is irrevelent as long as you punish your team somehow. I prefer to punish a team by killing its soldiers, it makes more sense anyways. As far as revelancy to situation goes, I don't see how it affects it. Please note that I read all your sentences, and I still have no clue why you propose this, and I have no idea what this suggestion would bring to gameplay.

[[FC]Fox]

Komrad... I feel your pain. Just take a deep breath and remember that the Devs don't exactly bend to the will of anyone with an account on GF.

[granpa_jo]

umm, the tickets are only removed when you spawn in bf2. Thats why medics can turn the tide. The more people they revive, the less tickets lost.

[[FC]Fox]

No, in BF2 you don't lose a ticket when you're laying on the ground "critically wounded" you lose it when you fully expire.

[{TDB}Chicken]

Originally Posted by Komrad_B

After reading your post, I still don't know why :

-The round should continue even the team has lost until everyone is dead.

-The good thing in having one point taken out every time you spawn instead of every time you die.



This doesn't work at all! Think about it :

Team has 1 ticket left. "Roger n00b" spawns. Team loses 1 ticket. Team loses.

What does seniority have to do with this? How can a "senior" prevent "Roger n00b" from spawning?



Then this is the very same system we have right now... If a team is not bleeding and has 400 tickets left, then you can presume they will be able to spawn and lose about 400 people before losing.



I still don't see how it make things more revelent. Seriously, if I have 500 tickets I have 500 tickets. Wether I lose one when I die or spawn is irrevelent as long as you punish your team somehow. I prefer to punish a team by killing its soldiers, it makes more sense anyways. As far as revelancy to situation goes, I don't see how it affects it. Please note that I read all your sentences, and I still have no clue why you propose this, and I have no idea what this suggestion would bring to gameplay.

OK....
The round should continue til the last man is dead because:
If I'm a British Soldier, and the battle is won when a german opens up on me with anything... I'm probably going to shoot back. But maybe that's just me.

Tickets should be taken out when you spawn because:
The way I modeled the system, your tickets are more like a spawn pool, than some sort of guage that tells you how close you are to losing. I'm sure its difficult to understand how that's different from now, but the way I see it, the current system makes the tickets more like some sort of clock. It doesnt affect your spawn, you just lose when it runs out. I think that's stupid because if there are still 20 enemy tanks on the battlefield, I'm not going to just pretend that they don't exist because the battle is over.

Roger Noob isn't a problem because:
HE ISNT GOING TO SPAWN. I didn't think it was thaaat hard to understand. The guy with the best score among those dead will take presidence over Roger for claiming that last spawn. You don't lose with 0 tickets, you just can't spawn any more.

-1 When you die or spawn?
Ok, since you say it doesn't matter then continue to refute my point, you win, since it doesn't matter, take a ticket away when you die.

I proposed this because:
This is the suggestion forum. Believe it or not, this is where the Devs get opinions from the general public. If the public hates my idea, fine, don't use it. I honestly don't expect them to change the whole system just because I say so.

What would changing this do for the game:
I think it would make the end of any given round more interesting for that last guy. Since the rest of the game is almost entirely team oriented, it seemed like it would add a sort of feeling of desperation for the last few guys. Obviously though... I thought it might be interesting to get an opinion on. Obviously, you and others disagree with me. That's fine, I just wanted an opinion.

[Komrad_B]

Originally Posted by (Adjective Here) Chicken

OK....
The round should continue til the last man is dead because:
If I'm a British Soldier, and the battle is won when a german opens up on me with anything... I'm probably going to shoot back. But maybe that's just me.

What if the guy on the losing team surrenders? Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were captured, and failed offensives were usually cancelled before the attacking troops all died.

Tickets should be taken out when you spawn because:
The way I modeled the system, your tickets are more like a spawn pool, than some sort of guage that tells you how close you are to losing. I'm sure its difficult to understand how that's different from now, but the way I see it, the current system makes the tickets more like some sort of clock. It doesnt affect your spawn, you just lose when it runs out. I think that's stupid because if there are still 20 enemy tanks on the battlefield, I'm not going to just pretend that they don't exist because the battle is over.

I understand what you mean. But you don't really understand the tickets as they are now. When you die, your team loses a ticket because there is one less living soldier on the field. Think of it like that and it can replace your idea.

Roger Noob isn't a problem because:
HE ISNT GOING TO SPAWN. I didn't think it was thaaat hard to understand. The guy with the best score among those dead will take presidence over Roger for claiming that last spawn. You don't lose with 0 tickets, you just can't spawn any more.

What if he is the only guy dead?

I proposed this because:
This is the suggestion forum. Believe it or not, this is where the Devs get opinions from the general public. If the public hates my idea, fine, don't use it. I honestly don't expect them to change the whole system just because I say so.

I know, but it is the general public's right to criticize other ideas too . Generally, you have to make sure your idea has a purpose that outweights the costs. Doing what you propose would probably need hours of coding, but what for?

What would changing this do for the game:
I think it would make the end of any given round more interesting for that last guy. Since the rest of the game is almost entirely team oriented, it seemed like it would add a sort of feeling of desperation for the last few guys. Obviously though... I thought it might be interesting to get an opinion on. Obviously, you and others disagree with me. That's fine, I just wanted an opinion.

I believe this already happens right now. Well, I'm desperate when my team has 10 tickets left and I spam the chat saying "DON'T DIE!". It makes everyone's virtual life so much more important, I love it.

[Jetro]

Originally Posted by (Adjective Here) Chicken

OK....
The round should continue til the last man is dead because:
If I'm a British Soldier, and the battle is won when a german opens up on me with anything... I'm probably going to shoot back. But maybe that's just me.

I'd retreat or surrender. Fighting to the death is for the Japanese.