Messages

If you took three lives off them then don't you think they deserve to lose? Instead of the game just letting them keep going because they'd be sad if they couldn't respawn?

I don't really see how infinite respawns make things more complicated either. I mean, it does mean there's no way to kinda win by accident just by getting kills, but it also means going for kills to try and wear the mercs down is gone too. Removing possible strategies doesn't help make things complex.

I don't think they necessarily deserve to lose, I think the spies deserve to be rewarded. I think along with the obvious inclusion of points, the game rewards you by allowing you to get closer to the objective without one of the mercs in your way. It's not infinite respawns that make the game more complicated, it's the type of gameplay they facilitate. As a spy, you can keep going for the objectives, and although death is a huge setback, you've always got the chance to turn the tables. Death doesn't make that any easier, but it certainly feels a lot less punishing, which I think is a good from the perspective of pure fun and accessibility. As a merc it's harder to shut out the spies from a win, and you can't rely on the spies playing differently as a result of death, so you really have to keep on your toes, as they're going to be relentless in their pursuit to hack the objectives. I think that's AWESOME.

Just look at CT, the mercs were way over-powered. If you had even teams, the mercs would probably win 80% of the time. Anything to even the balance is a good thing. Some people have a problem with fast double kills for example, but I don't. And neither do the people who've actually played the game. The reason why is because the mercs should never bunch up in a corner in the first place, so if they do, it only makes sense that they can be dealt with quickly. Fast melee kills fit the pacing of the game without making it easier for either side; spies get a faster kill, but mercs get a faster respawn instead of waiting to be grabbed and then killed or knocked out, so it's actually more balanced in my opinion. Killing from the front still requires an ambush factor in order to work, because if they see you coming, you're going to be dead before you know it. So really, I don't think it's much different from having to get behind the mercs, even if it's a little easier to execute. They do have infinite lives, and the respawn time is still 10 seconds, so I think it helps bring balance back to both teams, given the state of things in Chaos Theory.

It feels like dumbing down when you view it as an element within itself, but when you look at the game in context it doesn't serve to dumb down the experience at all. It simply serves a different style of gameplay, and while making one thing less complicated, makes another far more complex. I've took three lives off a merc on very rare occassions by myself in CT, so it was quite difficult, but even against good players I managed to do it fairly often as a team of two.

Alright :D

I like the game, but I played it for a few months, stopped because I was too busy, and then I wasn't interested in getting back into the game. The thing in BF3 is that you can afford to play however you want; you can snipe from a distance and rack up points, and even if your team loses or you don't reach the top of the board, you've had fun and you've made progress. Like COD, success is defined more by points than the actual result of the match.

In Blacklist, with very small teams, every player is vital to the outcome of the match, even in "Blacklist mode" with 4v4. So every player has to go for the objectives, at least in 2v2. In 4v4 you could have two spies teaming up as a kill squad while the others focus on making their way to the objectives. But that wouldn't be a result of being rewarded for points, it would be because the game gives them the option to do that effectively and still be successful. Anyway I wasn't trying to be a dick before, but I do completely disagree with the points you've made.

Well shit dude, I guess I am :P. My first port of call was never to go for kills against good players in PT/CT, the objective was the main way to win if you're up against skilled people. But while playing the game I would constantly go for kills, not only because they put the mercs out of action for extended periods of time, but because you could also end up winning the game if you killed them enough. And even if you don't knock out both of the mercs, it's much easier to win against one merc than two. They can't be in two places at once. Blacklist fixes that problem in that you always have a mate by your side, keeping the matches focused on the objectives and exploiting them. If you knocked out of of the mercs in Blacklist's classic mode, it would totally imbalance the game, because they could never defend the objectives effectively. You could just run away from them while hacking the objectives until you win.

[the system]

It's a change to the way the game recognizes killstreaks, the game hasn't changed in regard to streaking kills. Rewarding points doesn't affect live gameplay at all, and if you look on any forum where people discuss killstreaks in other games, they usually aren't talking about points. They're talking about things like Call of Duty, where you can bring a UAV online after streaking a few kills among other things. So when I said there's no killstreaks in the game, that's what I was referring to. I even clarified it before we started talking about BF3. It's weird to think that I'm talking about the points system as killstreaks when in the same post about BF3, I mentioned the points system in Blacklist.

Double kills are a mechanic in the game, that's why they're recognized by the system, not because they're common. Death from above is rewarded, and that's going to be far less common in a game without free jumping. The system exists because it's proven to be fun for millions of people across multiple games. It's implemented in BF3, a game with no killstreaks at all, and yet it's still a rewarding experience. In general, people enjoy the experience of working towards new equipment, and while the point system facilitates that in Blacklist mode, everything is open from the start in Classic mode.

I don't play BF3 much any more, lost interest :P

It was an option regardless of how difficult it was to complete with even teams. I never said that you could kill people from the front as a spy, and I even specified that fast kills are "certainly new against unscoped rifles", because they are. The rifle has a far lower rate of fire than it does in Blacklist, even though 4-6 bullets would kill you in CT. I wasn't talking about the Uzi, because it's not a rifle. And I specified before, I rarely played a game against someone who used the Uzi, because it was so unbalanced.

Click here to check my profile, my original username was "STON3COLDKILLA", and I joined in 2006 while still playing Chaos Theory online. I even registered before you, if that helps to clarify :).

EDIT: Changed "I never said that you couldn't kill people" to "could kill people", if you're wondering about the late edit.

When I said "there's no killstreaks in the game", I was responding to Farley4Fan. He mentioned killstreaks as if they were a new addition to Blacklist, but nothing has changed. You get rewarded for killstreaks in Blacklist, but killstreaks exist in PT/CT too. You posted a picture to prove that the game has killstreaks, but all you proved is that the game rewards you for it, which I already knew. Traditionally when people talk about a game having "killstreaks", they're referring to COD style rewards that affect live gameplay, like missle strikes and so on. Otherwise they'd just be stating the obvious. "Oh look, the environments are dark in Blacklist". No shit?

BF3 player info: http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/soldier/VaNiilaa/stats/170925964/. Quits percentage is from random disconnect bugs when the game first launched if you're wondering.

I was comparing BF3 to Call of Duty. Despite killstreaks having no effect on live gameplay, they're still rewarding because they give you points. Blacklist also rewards with you points, and they also have no effect on live gameplay. To say that points encourage kills is to ignore the game as a whole. Thumbs up for reading comprehension, I think we're done here ;)

In a race between a bike and a plane... (do you get it now)? The bike is easier to operate than the plane, but the terrain is much more complicated to cross with the bike than the plane. Having infinite lives is simpler than limited lives by itself, but Blacklist's objective is still more complex than PT/CT's, because you can't simply kill your way to victory. You have to utilise kills to aid hacking the objectives, you can't choose to ignore the objectives and simply kill the opposing team. This is one of many things that leads to a more complex and yet accessible experience with Blacklist.

EDIT: As mentioned in the other topic, I'm done with you.

[It's implemented in BF3, a game with no killstreaks at all, and yet it's still a rewarding experience]

While editing my post I added the part where I originally mentioned I was referring to "COD style" killstreaks, you responded slightly before that. However, I did mention that BF3 rewards you with points for killing people, just like Blacklist. Your original "proof" that Blacklist has killstreaks is that the game awards you points for it. I mentioned earlier that every game where you shoot multiple people has killstreaks, you just aren't awarded for it. The fact that you get ribbons for kills is totally irrelevant. Blacklist gives you points, BF3 gives you points and ribbons, but neither of them have traditional "killstreak" rewards that actually affect live gameplay like Call of Duty. Why do you think this went unnoticed?

The system exists because it's proven to be fun for millions of people across multiple games. It's implemented in BF3, a game with no killstreaks at all, and yet it's still a rewarding experience. In general, people enjoy the experience of working towards new equipment, and while the point system facilitates that in Blacklist mode, everything is open from the start in Classic mode.

[That's my whole argument.]

My argument is that rewarding behaviour encourages it. That's my whole argument.

Are you seriously disagreeing with that?

He killed 3 people in a row, and got 400 points for doing a double kill in a short period of time. Every competitive multiplayer game involving kills has killstreaks if we go by that definition. You can get a killstreak of "3" in PT and CT. I assumed that you were referring to killstreaks as in Call of Duty.

You're making my point for me, dude. CT had no killstreaks and killing wasn't the main goal. BF3 does have killstreaks and killing is a main goal. Blacklist also has killstreaks, so, y'know, what does that hint at? Right.

I'm disagreeing with you because the arguments you're making are invalid, have no basis in fact, and they're potentially misleading to people reading the forum. As you said in another thread, "I show up to save the day whenever people are saying stupid shit." I think I've said enough.

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or do you really need me to spell it out for you again? Killstreaks as you put them simply define killing people in succession; they exist in both PT and CT. The only difference in BF3/Blacklist is that they reward you for doing this with points. Does that make them the main goal? Nooooooooope. You weren't awarded points for hacking the objective in PT/CT, they were simply represented by a number (just like kills/lives). Hack-streaks exist in PT, CT and Blacklist, oh shit. The new representation and reward for progress in Blacklist doesn't having anything to do with the main goal in the game. The main goal is hacking, not kills, because you can't win without hacking the objectives. Hacking is more important than kills. Your argument is invalid, because the fact that you get points for killing is irrelevant.

It's simpler to ride a bike than operate a plane. What's more challenging to race across a large mountain, the bike or the plane? With the bike you have mountainous terrain, trees and rocks to avoid, uneven surfaces, and so on. In a plane you have to think about the fastest way to fly across the mountain, and that's fairly simple. Despite being harder to operate, the person operating the plane will find it much easier to cross the mountain than the guy on the bike.

What's my point? Just because you have to think about limited lives in CT, doesn't mean you don't think about unlimited lives in Blacklist. You have limited opportunities to hack the objective within the timelimit, and lives are the only way to facilitate your journey through the game. If you keep dying, you're going to set yourself back on the journey to victory. So using your lives effectively is still very important, and not only that, but the game is more complex in the sense that you have to think about the objectives in order to to win the match; you can't simply focus on killing the opposing team. The landscapes of CT and Blacklist look very similar from a distance, but regardless of having a simplified variable in Blacklist (lives), the game is still more complex than CT. You can make a variable more accessible (like a bike), and still have the game be more complex and rewarding overall (like awarding points).