So i wouldn’t consider TTK that relevant because of the squad/teamplay element. For me, the point is to achieve some degree of collaboration as a squad or team that results in overall success. Because that’s what battlefield brought to multiplayer gaming for me, in a world where team deathmatch was the distant next best thing.
If TTK bothered me, i imagine i would play a different game. Or if for some arbitrary reason it had to be in battlefield, i would probably have to stick a couple of hundred hours into playing as assault. and I’d be bored doing that.
Also, relating back to the ‘realism’ aspect again; because i don’t see this as a realistic game, death is irrelevant, a brief few second break for a drink or a drag and then you’re back. i don’t care if fake videogame me dies, i feel no attachment and i’m comfortable that i’ll die a lot (like, a LOT) and still be able to make a positive contribution.
In terms of rush/conquest, which make up the bulk of what i play, along with operations in bf1, you could win without killing anyone. you can’t win through only killing. while the former is never going to happen, that is the way the game’s balanced. So my focus is on doing what i do to help my team win, rather than on getting kills.
I get that the idea of collaborating as a squad/team isn’t what everyone wants from battlefield, and that that’s just me. But i do think that’s something battlefield specifically tries to add, and something that defines it as not just being another deathmatch shooter. Obviously these days there are a lot more class based team shooters to choose form, but i don’t think that should mean battlefield shouldn’t aim to be a benchmark for that.
At the end of the day if you had to choose, which would people prefer: to come top of a server, but your team loses, or for your team to win regardless of how you do? I’m definitely the latter. I get that there’s loads of middle-ground in between and i’m not proposing otherwise, but if that was the choice, because wanting to be top AND win would be the greed-driven no-concessions option that obviously everyone would choose if it was just a choice, where would people stand?
Jes, you might be too late on bf1; you’d be playing against people who know the weapons, the maps, what’s going to work where. it’s not an Arma learning curve, but every other sniper knows where they want to be and where they want to watch already so it’s got the potential to be frustrating. You could power through that, but i imagine that’d be a bit like me grinding away at assault until i got good at it, and sympathetically i wouldn’t want to inflict that on anyone.
As if to take the piss out of my obvious personal preference for collaboration over competition, I’ve just been informed I’ve received a ‘Working Together: Living Our Values’ award at work.