Why did I vote the way I did? :
- Option 3 (Only show if you killed a friendly)
- Option 5 (Show the person who killed you)
- Option 10 (Don't show the weapon that killed you at all.
Because when you kill:
- I think that giving away who killed you spoils a lot of information, it removes the "Did I ot him or did I not?" factor completely. That ain't fun. It's much more fun to find out you wasted time waiting for an enemy that is long gone or long dead or that manages to kill you 'cause you thought you cleared the area...
WALL OFTEXT!!!!
make it simple Donutz: kill message that shows for all (entire server) or just the person you killed, or the person who killed you (internal).
I prefer internal, I dont care whatever dude on the other side of the map killed etc etc... BUT: I wanna know who I killed and/or who killed me - ofcourse BOTH for TK and enemy, no difference.
So the vote could be:
-ABSOLUTELY NO MESSAGE
-AS IT IS NOW
-ONLY INTERNAL MESSAGES (Like it is in Battlefield:Heroes)
There are way too many options to allow for a simple poll with two or three options.
Anyway, yes yet an other attribute to play with would be with changing wether only the player or the entire team can see a "killed" or "killedby" (= death) message.
Yooopie wasting time is fun (Sorry for sarcasm here but I couldn't help it). The concept of fun is a personal thing the way I see it. And even if not knowing if you killed someone is not 'fun' (thrilling might be the word) it is definately rewarding (definately in time) in a way.
Maybe "wasting time" is a poor choice of words. But I'd think it would be quite funny to find out you were overlooking an area you think an enemy was in only to find out later that the chap already has been killed or moved to an other position.
This is also of importance to gameplay as you will be less likely to go after an other target if you are unsure if your current target is dead ro not, has or has not relocated himself. You might try and investigate (dangerous!), you might keep digged in (while it's save, thus allowing the enemy to outflank you from an other position) and there is a whole bunch of other scenarious to think of that would create a more realistic, more deverse and more fun gameplay.
- Sure, people could check the scoreboard to see if they got a higher score but this would require some time, take your eye of the battlefield (good for the enemy if you did not kill him) and thus would generally reduce the times people use this "game exploit of information" to find out if they made a kill. Especially in a tense situation you don't go and check your score.
Making a logical chain if kill-msgs are an exploit then scoreboard are exploit too and even going further killing someone becouse he was cheking how well is he doing is an exploit as well. It's a matter in drawing the line what things are exploits and which are features that help us in being aware of our surroundings just like senses do IRL.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I didn't spoke about removing the scoreboard. Personally I could live without, letthem poor scorewhores go and play Quake or Doom. But for the sake of compromise I can live with keeping it around. Regardless, I dont'quite get how not getting feedback (kill messages) for kills and thus not knowing if you killed the guy behind the rock with your grenade conflicts with "your awareness of surroundings" as in real life? Hell it is just that, if you see or think you see you got a kill you probably did. It's fun and realistically simulates how your mid works in real life.
- It would be nice if your score would be update when the people you killed respawn, probably not possible though and might cause problems at the end of the round.
If no-kill-msg would be immplemented. Yeah.
A delay would be a sort of compromise if the kill messages would not be removed. It would still give those who care about this text their text but a bit later so it stops the "instant unrealistic feedback" me and others complain about.
- Showing which exact weapon killed you gives away too much info, you will know that a sniper got you and thus look for him. But how the hell would you know a sniper got you unles you saw the guy with your own eyes?! This causes people hunting for snipers and other hidden enemies which is "unfair".
This might be the point I agree with except for the 'unfair' part. Both sides have the same abillity to know what weapon made their demise and that is fair. It just makes harder for a sniper to do his job but it shouldn't be too easy in the first place.
True, both teams have this "unfair" (or should I say "doesn't make sense" and "allows you to counter react to something you shouldn't be able to know unless you actually saw it with your own eyes or a team mate told you about" ) atvantage thus balancing it out. But that doesn't mean it's right. If we give both sides the ability to see the enemy on the HUD (if within 10 meters or something from you) it would be balanced but it woulnd't be right... it would give you information you aren't supposed to know, it would be unrealistc as hell.
- SHowing the general type of weapon could be an option, though even this may sometimes give you too much info unless you actually saw it with your own eyes what killed you. Atleast you won't know a sniper rifle got you but just a "handweapon" which could be anything basically.
I see a way for an exploit here: someone spawncamps with a tank and you don't even know what killed you (in general) and you can't act accordingly (get AT kit) unill it's too late.
You cna only camp a base. Firing at a capturable flag is alright, if the spawns are well located it should be very hard to cover a spawn point anyway and if it does it should only affect one out of a larger number of spawn points thus still allowig you to counter react while a tank is "supressing" the flag (so that team mates can move in more easily and capture the flag).
When talking about an uncapturable flag (base flag), same as above there should be alternative spawns.
And I doubt nobody would know what killed them, and if nobody saw the tank pounding the team they deserve to fail at taking approperiate counter messages. The tank probably did a very good job at remaining stealthy (that or the other team really really sucks badly, in which case I'd still say the tanker deserved his kills due to a clueless bun ch of idiots with IQ 40).
And what would be better then you spawning as antitank class, going to the front where the new threat has been detected (or where it is believed to be atleast) only to find out it's actually a guy with a mortar and you with your bazooka/PIAT/schreck and knife (or whatever the kits will look like) have to face close combat infantry? Pwned!
- Not showing the weapon that killed you at all prevents you knowing too much completely. Unless you saw it with your own eyes you won't know what got you. SO if you are killed from behind you won't be able to yell over team chat "Watchout, a tank just shot me from behind!" , it could have been a grenade, mortar or arty impact or even infantry... thus keeping up the element of suprise and keeping you guessing. You might think a tank got you, take "approperiate" measures on respawn only to find out you were wrong (or you will never find out at all... hah!).
The same case as in previous quote. Only thing I'd like to add that I don't see amusing to keep players 'in the dark'.
They got eyes don't they? And team chat? A minimap? voice chat? It's not impossible to take counter measures, it shouldn't be much harder at all. It only stops people from "magicaly" taking counter measures that they shouldn't really be aware of to begin with. Which means an advantage if the attacking team plays it's cards right (deception, stealth and other such things to win the battle become more rewarding).
Conclusion:
With this setup people know when they make a TK, are TK-ed and have to guess which weapon got them unless they saw it with there own eys. They will know who got them for fun (it's a game afterall) and fairness (reporting cheaters). An acceptable alternative would be to show the general type of weapon that killed you.
I would accept with all those points as they're logical and made for the sake of gameplay if it wouldn't be the fact that FH is not the type of a game I see it go well with.
I believe FH is meant to be realistic to the extend that it would hurt gameplay. In my opinion my setup would increase gameplay and improve realism and thus fit the FH spirit perfectly. It would strenghten FH.
Ofcourse this is just my view, I know there are many other views out there, hence why I mate this thread. :p