BF2: Stats screwed up?

Archived from groups: alt.games.ea.battlefield,alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Hi.

BFHQ tonight reports my global score as something like 194355464, when it
should be around 2k or so?

Also, all other stats are missing. Anyone else got this - is it the regular
stats outage, or have they been hacked again?

Archived from groups: alt.games.ea.battlefield,alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Non_Sequitur" <Non_Sequitur@attbi.net> wrote in message
news:Co6Qe.3376$eQ.2913@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> Schrodinger wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> BFHQ tonight reports my global score as something like 194355464, when it
>> should be around 2k or so?
>>
>> Also, all other stats are missing. Anyone else got this - is it the
>> regular stats outage, or have they been hacked again?
>
> Seen that a few times, just exited the game and restarted and it cleared
> right up. When it did happen, everything you described happened and my
> current rank was also reset to private.

Still showing as screwed up after 2 restarts. I suppose it will reset
eventually - which I'm not that upset about because the medic upgrade that I
chose stinx0rs anyway...

Archived from groups: alt.games.ea.battlefield,alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Schrodinger" <no@way.com> wrote in
news:Jx5Qe.195676$j83.16688@fe05.news.easynews.com:

> Also, all other stats are missing. Anyone else got this - is it the
> regular stats outage, or have they been hacked again?

My favorite server is unranked. No stats to worry about. And there are
servers with weapons unlocked, so you don't have to chase stats to use all
the features of the game.

Archived from groups: alt.games.ea.battlefield,alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Nonymous" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in
news8idnY6HVLxdv4_eRVn-2w@giganews.com:

> *earning* the unlocks is part of the fun for some. To each his own,
> though.

That would be ok if it was skill-based and not time-on-server based. I
believe in meritocracy, not seniority. It ought to average scores, not
accumulate them, with recent scores having more weight than older ones.

Right now all the kids on summer break have insanely high rank while
working folk who can only play a little bit on weekends have to work like
hell to make a single unlock.

Archived from groups: alt.games.ea.battlefield,alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:Xns96C162B653EC9juergennieveler@nieveler.org...
> ScratchMonkey <ScratchMonkey.blacklist@sewingwitch.com> wrote:
>
>> That would be ok if it was skill-based and not time-on-server based.
>
> It is. You can get killed for weeks and won't get anything except a
> purple heart. You have to get points to get promoted, and you only get
> points for actively doing something :-)

Sort of, but a mediocre player with loads of time to kill will gain
promotion far more quickly than a skilled player who can only put in, say,
an hour a day.

The points needed for promotion and unlocks are just silly. I have played
quite a bit now and bought the game on the day of release. I think I have
around 2,000 points - I generally finish in the top 10 on any server so I
can't be *that* bad!

Based on this, I would literally need to be playing for around 5 years to
rise to just the middle ranks.

If the points needed stay as they are, they should introduce some sort of
gearing system - similar to the commander gaining x2 for a team win.

Anyone on the winning side should gain a x2 - with the commander getting x3.

Also, achieving a particular ratio of, say, team oriented actions - healing,
repairing, resupplying, blowing stuff up, should introduce a 2x multiplyer.

Then, someone who is team focussed and whose team wins as a result could end
up with a 4 or 5 multiplyer. This would make sense both from encouraging
team play and rewarding winners.

With a bit of imagination, you could really improve the game by changing the
system. How about giving points for shooting an enemy player that was
shooting one of your team mates? More points for killing a tank that had
wracked up several kills (i.e. rewarding you taking out an enemy that was an
active danger to your team).

>> I believe in meritocracy, not seniority.
>
> Don't join the military. Ever. I mean it. You'd be extremely
> disappointed by them.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> Barium: What doctors do when treatment fails

Archived from groups: alt.games.ea.battlefield,alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 18:55:47 -0500, ScratchMonkey
<ScratchMonkey.blacklist@sewingwitch.com> wrote:

>"Nonymous" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in
>news8idnY6HVLxdv4_eRVn-2w@giganews.com:
>
>> *earning* the unlocks is part of the fun for some. To each his own,
>> though.
>
>That would be ok if it was skill-based and not time-on-server based. I
>believe in meritocracy, not seniority. It ought to average scores, not
>accumulate them, with recent scores having more weight than older ones.
>
>Right now all the kids on summer break have insanely high rank while
>working folk who can only play a little bit on weekends have to work like
>hell to make a single unlock.

Not if you improve your skills to earn points faster.

The only down side I know of is point harvesters like the -=COS=-
does.

Archived from groups: alt.games.ea.battlefield,alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:41r5h1dq75i34t3efvdsfne6q6fd7bo7su@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:45:22 +0100, "Schrodinger" <no@way.com> wrote:
>
>>Sort of, but a mediocre player with loads of time to kill will gain
>>promotion far more quickly than a skilled player who can only put in,
>>say,
>>an hour a day.
>
> So someone who doesn't have l337 skillz gets discouraged from playing.

I don't think so - just that someone mediocre who plugs away gets more
reward than someone excellent who only spends an hour a day - it discourages
"casual" play.

>>The points needed for promotion and unlocks are just silly. I have played
>>quite a bit now and bought the game on the day of release. I think I have
>>around 2,000 points - I generally finish in the top 10 on any server so I
>>can't be *that* bad!
>
> I agree the unlock levels after the first one are at silly levels.
>
>>Based on this, I would literally need to be playing for around 5 years to
>>rise to just the middle ranks.
>>
>>If the points needed stay as they are, they should introduce some sort of
>>gearing system - similar to the commander gaining x2 for a team win.
>>
>>Anyone on the winning side should gain a x2 - with the commander getting
>>x3.
>
> No, because that would encourage people to swap sides near the end of
> a match even more than they do now.

True. I still think the other ideas would work though.

> Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
> Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
> please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
> Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

Archived from groups: alt.games.ea.battlefield,alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in
news:41r5h1dq75i34t3efvdsfne6q6fd7bo7su@4ax.com:

> So someone who doesn't have l337 skillz gets discouraged from playing.

I don't have l337 skills, and I get plenty of points in assists and
teamwork. I don't have any problem driving useless people off crowded
servers. They're just bodies taking up excess space. (I find it incredibly
boring playing on the winning side of a lopsided game and will switch to
the underdog if the team balancer lets me.)

Archived from groups: alt.games.ea.battlefield,alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:42:13 +0200, Juergen Nieveler
<juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de> wrote:

> ScratchMonkey <ScratchMonkey.blacklist@sewingwitch.com> wrote:
>

>
>> I believe in meritocracy, not seniority.
>
> Don't join the military. Ever. I mean it. You'd be extremely
> disappointed by them.
>
> Juergen Nieveler

Ha ha. If BF2 were like the military the quickest way to a promotion would
be to logg in to BFHQ and stay there ;-)

--
Flashhart