Yes this might also make people more willing to suicide rush when they're full (assuming they care how much they feed).
I'm not sure what this is referring to.
Asvarox wrote:
I lie the idea of score given for killing someone based on how many points he has. Like 50-150% (based on difference between player and average score of his team) of "basic value".
I'm don't like this idea. You are punishing players for getting high scores by making them bigger feeders when they die. There's nothing wrong with the way it is now (Where you get more credits/evos depending on what you kill), and it will make players who get higher scores play a lot safer (camping is safe.... :|) and flee from fights in fear of giving the other team a whole bunch of evos/creds.
I was referring to the more funds for wealthy idea.
Khaoz wrote:
I'm don't like this idea. You are punishing players for getting high scores by making them bigger feeders when they die. There's nothing wrong with the way it is now (Where you get more credits/evos depending on what you kill), and it will make players who get higher scores play a lot safer (camping is safe.... :|) and flee from fights in fear of giving the other team a whole bunch of evos/creds.
How is giving more POINTS (score) "feeding" the other team? And where those credits/evos came from? I think you misread my post.
I dislike this idea. It punishes players who do well by making death even harsher if they do well.
That sounded awfully libertarian of me.
Yes, but it's a hell of a lot harder to kill better players than it is to kill weaker players. If you have a complete n00b, killing them repeatedly should not give you the same evos as killing me repeatedly. There's some skill difference in several months playing time.
