Why is the scoring system so bad in BF nowadays?

0SiGHT0
455 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
edited February 1
Ever since BF4 came out, it seems like the scoring system in all the subsequent BF game has been very different to say the least. Seldom does the person with the most kills ever get the top spot, and people with very few kills or sometimes zero kills are able to claim a top spot on the scoreboard. Most of it seems due to arbitrary points obtained your "squad", contributing to something that shouldn't even be in the game in the first place (V1 Rocket), albeit this is new to the BF series with BFV and was not in BF4 or BF1.

It was typical that in the prior BF games, such as Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3, that the best players would be on the top of the scoreboard. Now, not so much and depending on the game mode or how the game plays out, as well as how the other players are contributing, the scoreboard seems to provide a poor glimpse into how the match went. I look to the scoreboard for a brief summary of how everyone is doing, and since BF4 it has provided a seemingly insignificant descending order combined with a randomized list of kills and deaths.

Comments

  • TEKNOCODE
    10708 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Bf4 was a garbage pile 🗑

    That said, I often claim the top spot with the most kills on the team (or close to it). 🤷🏻‍♀️
  • 0SiGHT0
    455 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Bf4 was a garbage pile 🗑

    That said, I often claim the top spot with the most kills on the team (or close to it). 🤷🏻‍♀️

    Yes, every game from BF4 and onward has been trash compared to the prior titles.
  • oXGeminiXo
    352 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Because it is a team game that is centered around an objective based modes, not killing enemies. Killing enemies has only little influence on the round itself. Reviving and taking flags have. Usually this sort of stuff goes hand in hand, but there are exceptions.

    ⬆ this right here. The reason for the score system is so people dont get glorified for not helping the team because they are only looking for kills. I like this way because it is way more detailed even down to where you shoot people and really hinders people who won't play the objective or join a tdm server. I see the person with the top kills at the top but that player also plays the objective and helps the team while others who play for kills only round off the bottom.
  • 0SiGHT0
    455 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    oXGeminiXo wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Because it is a team game that is centered around an objective based modes, not killing enemies. Killing enemies has only little influence on the round itself. Reviving and taking flags have. Usually this sort of stuff goes hand in hand, but there are exceptions.

    ⬆ this right here. The reason for the score system is so people dont get glorified for not helping the team because they are only looking for kills. I like this way because it is way more detailed even down to where you shoot people and really hinders people who won't play the objective or join a tdm server. I see the person with the top kills at the top but that player also plays the objective and helps the team while others who play for kills only round off the bottom.

    I don't mind this, but the disparity is sometimes very shocking. So out of whack that you wonder what the person was doing to accrue all those points, obviously if they aren't killing almost anyone they aren't doing too much. I'm talking like a person with say 30 kills will have the same points as someone with 5 kills at or near the top of the scoreboard. It doesn't make much sense to me.
  • KingsportCowboy
    167 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Killing is not the only way to contribute to a team...
  • 0SiGHT0
    455 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Killing is not the only way to contribute to a team...

    Of course, it's the most important way to contribute and the points should be allotted as such. They aren't and haven't been since before BF4 was released.
  • KingsportCowboy
    167 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    0SiGHT0 wrote: »
    Killing is not the only way to contribute to a team...

    Of course, it's the most important way to contribute and the points should be allotted as such. They aren't and haven't been since before BF4 was released.

    Except giving the most points for straight kills encourages more non-teamplay which is already bad enough without incentive.
  • skippylarue
    1004 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 5
    0SiGHT0 wrote: »
    Killing is not the only way to contribute to a team...

    Of course, it's the most important way to contribute and the points should be allotted as such. They aren't and haven't been since before BF4 was released.

    I could be wrong but from what I've seen, kills still are the most important factor to a decent score. However, the most recent titles place a much larger emphasis on where a kill occurs. If the enemy is on a point or you are on a point when a kill happens, it's worth far more.
  • CritiKal_DamAge
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    0SiGHT0 wrote: »
    Killing is not the only way to contribute to a team...

    Of course, it's the most important way to contribute and the points should be allotted as such. They aren't and haven't been since before BF4 was released.

    Unless you are playing Team Deathmatch getting lots of kills is not as important as capturing flags and holding them. If you PTFO and get a lot of kills you'll be at the top of the leader board, otherwise you miss out on all those glorious capture and defend points and just accumulate kill points which are useless if your team has serious ticket bleed.
  • CritiKal_DamAge
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    0SiGHT0 wrote: »
    Killing is not the only way to contribute to a team...

    Of course, it's the most important way to contribute and the points should be allotted as such. They aren't and haven't been since before BF4 was released.

    Unless you are playing Team Deathmatch getting lots of kills is not as important as capturing flags and holding them.

    Holding flag's does not reward the players enough. Capturing flag's is money. Zerg flag to flag and you pile up points. Patiently Hold & Defend a flag and the reward is minimal.

    You're right i agree with you. Unless someones attacking while you're there its kinda pointless to stick around and wait.
  • VincentNZ
    1944 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I mean we can just do the math, really. Conquering a flag will give you 500 points and reviving will give you 100 or 200. A kill will on average give you 100 points, maybe 110. So if you happen to be in objective areas a lot, you will outscore a guy that is sitting back further, but does more kills. I think this is a good thing, too, but I would like to see more point incentives for other things as well.
  • Ploodovic
    1526 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    0SiGHT0 wrote: »
    Killing is not the only way to contribute to a team...

    Of course, it's the most important way to contribute and the points should be allotted as such. They aren't and haven't been since before BF4 was released.
    A kill is only contributing to the ticket count, if that player is not revived. Someone reviving a teammate is literally canceling out that kill, making kills far less important, than some might think.

    If a player on team A gets 30 kills and doesn’t revive anyone, while another player on team B revives 30 teammates and gets 5 kills, the player with the 5 kills is the one that’s contributing more to the team score.

    In BF1, they added the breakdown of the scoring, at the winning/losing screen; score from flags and score from kills. My suggestion is to add something similar in BFV, but to also add “tickets saved by revives”. This way you would get a better understanding of, why the round went like it did.
  • Jesus4000
    153 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    0SiGHT0 wrote: »
    Ever since BF4 came out, it seems like the scoring system in all the subsequent BF game has been very different to say the least. Seldom does the person with the most kills ever get the top spot, and people with very few kills or sometimes zero kills are able to claim a top spot on the scoreboard. Most of it seems due to arbitrary points obtained your "squad", contributing to something that shouldn't even be in the game in the first place (V1 Rocket), albeit this is new to the BF series with BFV and was not in BF4 or BF1.
    Oh, it's you again...

    Points should be given to those that contribute to the greater cause, aka the team effort.
    Simply scoring the most kills, doesn't automatically mean that you did teamwork.
    I actually love the fact that you can top the scoreboard with stats of 0:0, as this shows that when you are dedicated to your combat role, you can achieve something without being the most skilled killer on the battlefield.
    This emphasizes the importance of the combat roles and people willing to put in the effort to play as a team.
    A support player that doesn't throw pouches around or sets up crates, doesn't belong on the top of the board, even if they score 100:0.
    0SiGHT0 wrote: »
    It was typical that in the prior BF games, such as Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3, that the best players would be on the top of the scoreboard. Now, not so much and depending on the game mode or how the game plays out, as well as how the other players are contributing, the scoreboard seems to provide a poor glimpse into how the match went. I look to the scoreboard for a brief summary of how everyone is doing, and since BF4 it has provided a seemingly insignificant descending order combined with a randomized list of kills and deaths.
    Why not remove K/D from the scoreboard and the stats screen at all?
    There are already far too many people that are way too concerned over their K/D ratio, not willing to jump into a pile of 4 dead people, maybe reviving three of them and then getting killed in the process.
    Sometimes you gotta take one for the team.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!