Scoring system? Who cares?

[El_Vikingo]

I'm sure about punishing people who rack up kills, maybe lower the kill points from 4 to 2?

[CAS_117]

1. Killing an asset should be worth more than or equal to losing it. So if I shoot down a MiG and get nailed by a SAM, I should have a score thats > or = 0. The thing is, my A-10 can kill a SAM. He can't kill a MiG.

2. Killing a tank does more for the war effort than killing a rifleman, I shouldn't have to explain that. So if I run up to a tank and C4 it so my troops can get to processing (theres like 10 different flags called processing), then I should get more points than killing some stranded medic wandering around the desert.



3. Just because something isn't a threat to me doesn't make it so to my teammate. This is why teamwork and killing stuff are the same. If I shoot a sniper with a pistol or vaporize him with a tank, he's just as big a threat. If not to me directly than to someone else. So which shows batter teamwork? Killing something that is a threat to me or to someone else? It should only make a small difference in what weapons you use as opposed to the object you kill.

So, teamwork points remain exactly that, how well you benefit your team. Killing an object that may not be a personal problem, like a bunny hopping marksman trying to escape your APC, but to the squad pinned down across the street he may very well be.

My point is that objects that are a greater threat to your team should be a rewarded more teamwork points than objects that aren't. Never mind whether its a threat to you or not, you're still assisting your side; thats one less bomb, shell, or bullet that will come into contact with your team.

[Lampshade111]

Right here is undeniable proof that the M16 needs to be improved. I dare somebody to oppose what the chart clearly shows.

[Masaq]

What it's missing is choppers, which in this debate are clearly the fishermen on the shoreline tossing hand-grenades into the sea. (they're just off to one side of that diagram)

[EagleEyeLG]

What it's missing is choppers, which in this debate are clearly the fishermen on the shoreline tossing hand-grenades into the sea. (they're just off to one side of that diagram)

Eh, I would say a decent A10 pilot can pwn a chopper anyday.

[101 bassdrive]

Eh, I would say a decent A10 pilot can pwn a chopper anyday.

they dont encounter eachother to often since they have different natural habitats. sort of like pinguins and icebears.

or to stick to the chart: like tropic and deep sea fish.
so Id say theyd replace the fighters and bombers in the foodchain. although they have a hard time swallowing a h-at so the size between those two shouldnt differ.
also their common prey is the tank, and grounddwelling species which has developed a defence mechanism called HEAT rounds over the decades and doesnt fear lag.
so according to the evolutionary logic of the survival of the fittest either the rare attack helo has to evolve or it will extinct.

[El_Vikingo]

A10s are used to shoot down choppers if needed, since they fly slow.

[CmdUnknown]

A10s are used to shoot down choppers if needed, since they fly slow.

aren't they called as well "A-10 Tank Killer" because they take down all those choppers?