First off, even though this is my own idea, I want everyone to know that I hope it never happens because even though campers are annoying, they have every right to do it, and me crying about it shouldn't force developers to change the game to screw campers.... Camping is a strategy that has ups and downs like anything else. Campers are totally avoidable.
Now, about my idea.... Just implement a feature that makes it so that after you get so many consecutive kills in one portion of the map, (say ~4 kills) every kill you get in that area the rest of the match is worth no points for your team, nor do the kills count towards your next killstreak. But, they WILL count towards your K/D ratio.
... by great... I mean...
... utterly vapid.
I wasn't saying it was law, I was saying you didn't think out my aspects as you didn't mention them. My response to your reply would be, why would you punish people that actually play the objective?
Remember points for kills are for more than end the game. They progress gun attachments, they allow you to prestige, they count towards score streaks etc.
So you're saying that if I ran to a hard point and did good at holding that spot that I shouldn't get points for kills because I am doing good?
Instead of saying "Your idea sucks and you don't think because this idea punishes people for holding hardpoints." ...why didn't you say "Nice idea, but it should probably have an exception for players that are currently holding an objective.
You just attacking it, instead of adding your own thoughts to it.
I don't like the idea at all. I just don't see the point in punishing players who are outsmarting the opposite team. If you a have one player, or a team of players, playing inside one area, either use tactical grenades to gain the advantage or avoid the area completely.
If you avoid the area completely, you force them to come out instead of having them prey on you, you prey on them.
I don't camp, but I love campers. If it's just one person it's easy to outsmart and out maneuver them. If it's 3+ people I'll just avoid the area and go after the stranglers.
Usually what happens when I'm in a meting like this where open discussions are encouraged, is that you throw out an idea. People then critique said idea which allows you to refine it. Yes some previous meetings had people input what they thought "should happen". It then became a battle of people choosing sides on ideas and people taking it personally.
So yes when I combat an idea like you posted I go straight to what has worked in past experience. Basically you bounce it off the group who will then realize the downfalls of it. After that step usually comes a collective idea of what happens OR the person originally floating the idea reconstructs their original idea to overcome the holes that they originally overlooked.
I'm sorry if you took offense to a person posting on the forum boards. I didn't attack you personally. The only thing that could have been construed wrong was that I said it wasn't well thought out. I didn't call you stupid or ignorant. Just that you posted a concept without taking into account all aspects of the game. If this offends you then you are going to have a hard time in life.
Likewise I don't share your notion of this idea and don't think it should be even thought up. So how would I share your logic in what should be done with this concept when I don't agree with the beginning premise 1 bit? My ideas would just convolute your original idea so much so that it wouldn't do what you set out to do in the first place. So why should I even post those ideas? It would just be counterproductive to your cause. I just wanted you to address the lacking deficiencies in your premise.