# Bigger objective score on larger maps. **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [June 3, 2016, 5:43am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653 "2016-06-03T05:43:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![KakeHC](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/kakehc/32/102458_2.png) [@KakeHC](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/KakeHC)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 5:43am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/1 "2016-06-03T05:43:00Z")
So basically I’m saying that can we get bigger objective scores on larger maps since smaller maps have more people in smaller space and that means more score in less time. At the moment in larger maps ofcourse people are playing on larger area meaning there are times you cant even find the enemy even on the objectives. And when you do there isnt so many, like in maps locker metro zavod. So basically giving larger objective area/objectice score on bigger maps could get more people out from maps like locker since in small maps its more easy to maintain higher score per minute. And then we got big maps where the spm goes down easily by more than half compared to small maps. So this is just a proposition to balance the scoring system on bigger maps. Is it possible? ---
**Author:** ![KakeHC](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/kakehc/32/102458_2.png) [@KakeHC](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/KakeHC)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 6:04am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/2 "2016-06-03T06:04:00Z")
Not more flags. But more score from capping defending and attacking them. ---
**Author:** ![duck8751](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/a87d85/32.png) [@duck8751](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/duck8751)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 6:12am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/3 "2016-06-03T06:12:00Z")
I think a larger objective score is always better, because it incentivizes playing the objectives, rather than a game of cq turning into a game of tdm. Increesing the score would make players ptfo. ---
**Author:** ![VectorRoll](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/vectorroll/32/103980_2.png) [@VectorRoll](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/VectorRoll)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 6:38am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/4 "2016-06-03T06:38:00Z")
Sorry but I don’t like this idea. Personally scores are so insane nowadays so much so that it is ridiculous. They give you insane amounts for anything and everything and for very little work at that. I personally miss the days were 1 kill gave you 1 point. Now everything is 100 here 200 there, 500 here and even 5000+ there. What we end up with is scores in the tens of thousands per game and tens of millions by the time we end. The old days was a lot better in my opinion. You do not really need all these high point values. The way I look at it is that the Developers have started doing this as they want players to feel like they have achieved something with very little play time needed. For one they know that players nowadays play the games they makes for shorter periods of time do to the fast turn around between new games. Games come in one year and the next year there is usually something new and players move on. With some games it is even within a few months at that. So developers makes these insane point values and give points for practically everything and anythings in order to make you **Feel** like you have achieved something in the game. In reality you really haven’t. **It is a false sense of achievement.** They make it so that you scores fast and rank fast. From where I stand it is all because they know that you are going to move on from the game within a short period of time and they want you to feel good when you do. What is worse is that people actually asked for all this. Its like kids nowadays want everything for nothing. All we usually here nowadays is give me more really. I want points for this and I wants points for that. Personally I say “Give me a break! Lets go back to small point values where achieving isn’t something falsely given but instead rightfully earned.” Sadly I know this wont happen. Anyways… I say just stick with larger Ticket Counts if you want larger scores. Instead of playing short matches at say 800 tickets, go hop on a server that has 1500 tickets and play a little longer. There is no need to have different point values based on different map size. That would be ridiculous and we already have to much ridiculousness in the game. 😃 That is just my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![KakeHC](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/kakehc/32/102458_2.png) [@KakeHC](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/KakeHC)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 6:40am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/5 "2016-06-03T06:40:00Z")
Neutralizing should be higher than capturing since that is the point when enemy should still be in the area. When youre in a vehicle infantry kill points should be lower. Since you have an advantage on them anyway. Every enemy is an small objective in the game and I dont believe lowering kill points would be a good thing while playing infantry. Also when youre as infantry those rpg shots on vehicles should give more points also disabling and destroying them. I wouldnt touch tank vs tank kill destroy score score tho. ---
**Author:** ![KakeHC](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/kakehc/32/102458_2.png) [@KakeHC](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/KakeHC)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 7:03am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/6 "2016-06-03T07:03:00Z")
I dont think you understood the main point I had vectorRoll ---
**Author:** ![VectorRoll](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/vectorroll/32/103980_2.png) [@VectorRoll](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/VectorRoll)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/7 "2016-06-03T16:50:00Z")
> [@KakeHC](#): > > I dont think you understood the main point I had vectorRoll I understood it. You think that people would leave small maps if Points were more in larger maps. Sadly that will not happen as the main reason people love small maps is for the style of gameplay they give and not for the points they receive. Basically those that like maps like Locker and Metro just like them for the congested wash-and-repeat style they offer with all their Spamfest glory. LOL :lol: Just as those heli pilots that like the maps with the LittleBirds and AC’s all because so they use and play the way they like. The only thing giving more points to larger maps would do is favor those players that like say larger vehicle gameplay. You are basically pooping on those that don’t like that style of gameplay. There will always be different point values for doing different things. But to give different values for a kill just because you are in a vehicle rather than on foot would, similar to what I said above, poop on those that use vehicles. Funny thing is that DICE actually does what you are asking already but in a different way. Players have points for disabling vehicles and all that where in a vehicle, if they kill infantry they just get kill points and maybe something like assist or savor points etc.,. In any case, no matter the map size. The point values for say capturing a Objective should be the same across the board Dependent on the Game Mode you are playing. Now with that in mind, like **duck8751** mentioned and **Sky\_collapsed** seems to have agreed with about having the capturing of the Objective a little more than say neutralizing is a good idea and should really be how things are setup. But in reality you already do get a little more for staying their and capturing it as well, and it has been that way for a long time. It was 2 to 1 in the past games and is is currently 400 for capture and 100 for neutralizing with like additional 10 points building up every so often as you capture it, in BF4. At least last I remember it was set to that. All of this adds up. Like I mentioned above you get points for practically anything and everything and all that just keeps adding up. So making something a little more really isn’t going to make a difference in populating other maps or getting people to play differently. Personally… In the end I still think that all these high insane points values is not and were not needed. I still would love to go back to 1 point 1 kill. It worked back then and it can work now. Here is a link below to a web site that list a little bit of the point values from past and current BF games. I believe the values for BF4 have since been updated in-game and not on this site plus the site doesn’t list all the things we get points for but it still gives a good idea. You can see that doing certain things gives you different amounts already and when you really think about it, it all adds up. People know all of this already. That they can get more points for doing certain things and helping their teams. Yet they still play their own way and on certain maps more than others. So I doubt increasing it will make a difference to it. To do so it would have to be drastic, and that would just upset people. At least in my opinion. [http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Score](http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Score) ---
**Author:** ![visegrip117](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/visegrip117/32/104005_2.png) [@visegrip117](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/visegrip117)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/8 "2016-06-03T17:02:00Z")
> [@KakeHC](#): > > Not more flags. But more score from capping defending and attacking them. > [@duck8751](#): > > I think a larger objective score is always better, because it incentivizes playing the objectives, rather than a game of cq turning into a game of tdm. Increesing the score would make players ptfo. Agreed ---
**Author:** ![Lordmang4](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/e19b73/32.png) [@Lordmang4](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Lordmang4)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 5:34pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/9 "2016-06-03T17:34:00Z")
I’m OK with increasing objective scores. However, I don’t think doing so will incentivize some players who are disinclined to play the objective. For example, camping snipers (recon) will always camp and snipe, even if you were to give 1 million points for capping a flag. ---
**Author:** ![robkrush](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@robkrush](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/robkrush)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 5:40pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/10 "2016-06-03T17:40:00Z")
How about rather than more points for capping you get a bonus per defender killed while you are capping? Likewise. A bonus per attacker killed while on the objective. Both of you must be on the objective to be awarded these bonuses. My concern with raising the points for simply capping is that it will cause people to run to the farthest unguarded objective just for the points. Or cause guys to camp just off the objective then recap it immediately after taken. We don’t need any more scrubby shenanigans. ---
**Author:** ![swfc4eva1](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/swfc4eva1/32/103667_2.png) [@swfc4eva1](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/swfc4eva1)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/11 "2016-06-03T17:49:00Z")
Yes makes sense as it’s definitely easier to score more points on smaller maps! ---
**Author:** ![KakeHC](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/kakehc/32/102458_2.png) [@KakeHC](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/KakeHC)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 6:22pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/12 "2016-06-03T18:22:00Z")
> [@robkrush](#): > > How about rather than more points for capping you get a bonus per defender killed while you are capping? Likewise. A bonus per attacker killed while on the objective. Both of you must be on the objective to be awarded these bonuses. > > My concern with raising the points for simply capping is that it will cause people to run to the farthest unguarded objective just for the points. Or cause guys to camp just off the objective then recap it immediately after taken. We don’t need any more scrubby shenanigans. > [@KakeHC](#): > > So basically giving larger objective 🙂 _AREA_ 🙂 /objectice score on bigger maps could get more people out from maps like locker since in small maps its more easy to maintain higher score per minute. ---
**Author:** ![KaaDaver](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/kaadaver/32/102448_2.png) [@KaaDaver](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/KaaDaver)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/bigger-objective-score-on-larger-maps/101653/13 "2016-06-03T18:31:00Z")
They already doubled the cq capture score in bf4 from 200 to 400. People still played the same way. I do agree with the increased score for larger maps, but I doubt it would deter people from playing cluster maps like locker