Any good Engineer will tell you "you get what you measure". If you measure a production line's worth by the number of widgets it produces, it will absolutely churn the things out.
And the number of rejects they produce will be enormous.
So you measure the number of "usable" widgets they produce. Simples...

My point is, any chance of another balancing round on the points awards guys?

Remove points awards for destroying neutral structures

Many matches, some genius will decide that it's their job to blow up every turret in sight before their allies have a chance to press them into service for the team's benefit (they'll often try the CRU or equipment depot as well, but they have enough armour that they attacker usually gives up and looks for softer targets before they blow. Usually...) I now firmly expect to hear a bunch of voices saying "ahhh, that's so they don't fall into enemy hands". Aha. Right - that's why they blow them up while their team-mates are actively hacking them I guess? The truth is nothing of the sort, it's just selfish me, Me, ME!!!! gameplay, where someone is grabbing any and all warpoints he can, to the detriment of the overall team effort, without exposing himself to significant danger. It's also frequently followed by a column of enemy vehicles rolling (largely unopposed) into the team's end-zone, but that's by the by. What is beyond doubt is that a neutral control point is no threat, and is a potential aid. No points should be awarded for destroying it.

Make the points rewards reflect the objectives.

I generally play Skirmish games. For me, having no objectives makes Ambush games just feel like they lack depth of gameplay. Now and then I have a quick blat in Ambush, and there are some great players out head-hunting there. And I do my bit to make sure my K/D is high. Because killing people while conserving your clones is how you win Ambush...

I think you all know where I'm going with this...

And then I go back to Skirmish, and I see... exactly the same thing. There's a small minority of players "putting ourselves out there" to take control points and win the game. Because that's how you win Skirmish - you destroy the enemy MCC, and that requires you to take, and hold, control points. And yet, even now, many players are sitting in the hills sniping, or running round in HAVs collecting kills, not taking those control points.
Now, I'll agree that I'd rather have a decent sniper on my side than against me, and I acknowledge that a small minority of Skirmish games end when one side runs out of clones. But far more end in failure because insufficient players had the strength of character to support a press forward to take a control point. Or because the "snipers" aren't covering the ground infantry, so every attempt to take a control point (which, after all, requires you to stay in one place for quite some time) results in their being killed by unopposed enemy snipers.
So the question is, why is a sniper kill worth as much in Skirmish as it is in Ambush? Players, it seems, will cheerfully ignore their objectives if it pays for them, and while that's a very New Eden concept, who the hell is rewarding these idiots who report in after the battle "oh, yeah, I completely ignored what you asked me to do, and sure, we lost like dogs, but check out these scalps I collected! Can I get paid now?".

And looking at some of the higher-rewarded players in Skirmish, it's pretty clear they didn't put themselves out to meet objectives. Shouldn't the actual objectives of a match guide the rewards?

Or, as any good Engineer will tell you, "you get what you measure".
Thanks for reading.

The main reason I destroy installations is because enemys re hack them and if I am low on health can be targeted and killed by one. A lot of a time I am shooting one and someone hacks it I know this is a bad idea and guess what I am running around a corner and a enemy has hacked it and releases a barrage of bullets in to the back of my tank killing me. These installations are not defended and only give 50 points for hacking in which a enemy will probably re hack them best for me to just claim my 100 war points. They are not strategical points at all and not very help ful for an infantry unless enemies are just lining them selves up to die by it.

Any good Engineer will tell you "you get what you measure". If you measure a production line's worth by the number of widgets it produces, it will absolutely churn the things out.
And the number of rejects they produce will be enormous.
So you measure the number of "usable" widgets they produce. Simples...

My point is, any chance of another balancing round on the points awards guys?

1. Remove points awards for destroying neutral structures

Many matches, some genius will decide that it's their job to blow up every turret in sight before their allies have a chance to press them into service for the team's benefit (they'll often try the CRU or equipment depot as well, but they have enough armour that they attacker usually gives up and looks for softer targets before they blow. Usually...) I now firmly expect to hear a bunch of voices saying "ahhh, that's so they don't fall into enemy hands". Aha. Right - that's why they blow them up while their team-mates are actively hacking them I guess? The truth is nothing of the sort, it's just selfish me, Me, ME!!!! gameplay, where someone is grabbing any and all warpoints he can, to the detriment of the overall team effort, without exposing himself to significant danger. It's also frequently followed by a column of enemy vehicles rolling (largely unopposed) into the team's end-zone, but that's by the by. What is beyond doubt is that a neutral control point is no threat, and is a potential aid. No points should be awarded for destroying it.

2. Make the points rewards reflect the objectives.

I generally play Skirmish games. For me, having no objectives makes Ambush games just feel like they lack depth of gameplay. Now and then I have a quick blat in Ambush, and there are some great players out head-hunting there. And I do my bit to make sure my K/D is high. Because killing people while conserving your clones is how you win Ambush...

I think you all know where I'm going with this...

And then I go back to Skirmish, and I see... exactly the same thing. There's a small minority of players "putting ourselves out there" to take control points and win the game. Because that's how you win Skirmish - you destroy the enemy MCC, and that requires you to take, and hold, control points. And yet, even now, many players are sitting in the hills sniping, or running round in HAVs collecting kills, not taking those control points.
Now, I'll agree that I'd rather have a decent sniper on my side than against me, and I acknowledge that a small minority of Skirmish games end when one side runs out of clones. But far more end in failure because insufficient players had the strength of character to support a press forward to take a control point. Or because the "snipers" aren't covering the ground infantry, so every attempt to take a control point (which, after all, requires you to stay in one place for quite some time) results in their being killed by unopposed enemy snipers.
(3)So the question is, why is a sniper kill worth as much in Skirmish as it is in Ambush? Players, it seems, will cheerfully ignore their objectives if it pays for them, and while that's a very New Eden concept, who the hell is rewarding these idiots who report in after the battle "oh, yeah, I completely ignored what you asked me to do, and sure, we lost like dogs, but check out these scalps I collected! Can I get paid now?".

And looking at some of the higher-rewarded players in Skirmish, it's pretty clear they didn't put themselves out to meet objectives. Shouldn't the actual objectives of a match guide the rewards?

Or, as any good Engineer will tell you, "you get what you measure".
Thanks for reading.

Many matches, some genius will decide that it's their job to blow up every turret in sight before their allies have a chance to press them into service for the team's benefit (they'll often try the CRU or equipment depot as well, but they have enough armour that they attacker usually gives up and looks for softer targets before they blow. Usually...) I now firmly expect to hear a bunch of voices saying "ahhh, that's so they don't fall into enemy hands". Aha. Right - that's why they blow them up while their team-mates are actively hacking them I guess? The truth is nothing of the sort, it's just selfish me, Me, ME!!!! gameplay, where someone is grabbing any and all warpoints he can, to the detriment of the overall team effort, without exposing himself to significant danger. It's also frequently followed by a column of enemy vehicles rolling (largely unopposed) into the team's end-zone, but that's by the by. What is beyond doubt is that a neutral control point is no threat, and is a potential aid. No points should be awarded for destroying it.

Remove points awards for destroying neutral structures

Many matches, some genius will decide that it's their job to blow up every turret in sight before their allies have a chance to press them into service for the team's benefit (they'll often try the CRU or equipment depot as well, but they have enough armour that they attacker usually gives up and looks for softer targets before they blow. Usually...) I now firmly expect to hear a bunch of voices saying "ahhh, that's so they don't fall into enemy hands". Aha. Right - that's why they blow them up while their team-mates are actively hacking them I guess? The truth is nothing of the sort, it's just selfish me, Me, ME!!!! gameplay, where someone is grabbing any and all warpoints he can, to the detriment of the overall team effort, without exposing himself to significant danger. It's also frequently followed by a column of enemy vehicles rolling (largely unopposed) into the team's end-zone, but that's by the by. What is beyond doubt is that a neutral control point is no threat, and is a potential aid. No points should be awarded for destroying it.

Remove points awards for destroying neutral structures

Many matches, some genius will decide that it's their job to blow up every turret in sight before their allies have a chance to press them into service for the team's benefit (they'll often try the CRU or equipment depot as well, but they have enough armour that they attacker usually gives up and looks for softer targets before they blow. Usually...) I now firmly expect to hear a bunch of voices saying "ahhh, that's so they don't fall into enemy hands". Aha. Right - that's why they blow them up while their team-mates are actively hacking them I guess? The truth is nothing of the sort, it's just selfish me, Me, ME!!!! gameplay, where someone is grabbing any and all warpoints he can, to the detriment of the overall team effort, without exposing himself to significant danger. It's also frequently followed by a column of enemy vehicles rolling (largely unopposed) into the team's end-zone, but that's by the by. What is beyond doubt is that a neutral control point is no threat, and is a potential aid. No points should be awarded for destroying it.

Nobody defends an installation. You complain about the lack of interest in taking and keeping objectives, but turrets are a complete afterthought and are usually only manned if the enemy has a vehicle on the field.

That means your team is an impediment to you if you run a vehicle. They grab the 50WP and then abandon the installation until it gets hacked by the enemy. Nobody stays with it because they are positioned in a useless spot for killing infantry and leave you fully exposed to being shot in the back. So it's usually the AI that kills your vehicle.

I consider all installations the equivilant of rouge drones that will turn on me at a moments notice.

It might be different if the stupid things were defended and used, but tell me the last time YOU spent a match defending your installations. I'll wager that amounted to a total of 0.01% of your game time.

Nobody defends an installation. You complain about the lack of interest in taking and keeping objectives, but turrets are a complete afterthought and are usually only manned if the enemy has a vehicle on the field.

That means your team is an impediment to you if you run a vehicle. They grab the 50WP and then abandon the installation until it gets hacked by the enemy. Nobody stays with it because they are positioned in a useless spot for killing infantry and leave you fully exposed to being shot in the back. So it's usually the AI that kills your vehicle.

I consider all installations the equivilant of rouge drones that will turn on me at a moments notice.

It might be different if the stupid things were defended and used, but tell me the last time YOU spent a match defending your installations. I'll wager that amounted to a total of 0.01% of your game time.

Hacking turrets is bad and you should feel bad if you do it.
I try to support my team as much as I can when I play, and I play as a vehicle user. Want to know what happens when I get pushed back and hit a red turret because you thought it was a good idea to hack it and then didn't hold it? I get ****** from both sides. You say we're selfish for destroying them? No, we're playing smart and understand what is going to happen, you're not going to hold the Turret because you're going to hack it and then move on to the objective, and we're not going to defend it because you need us up there pushing in the HAV, we need it gone so we can safely proceed as it's hinders us a lot more than helps us.

When it comes to Supply Depots, it all depends on the situation.
I'll push up, and see an enemy well dug in using the Supply Depot to it's max potential (Swapping out when they get low, spamming AVs at me, etc) and I'll notice my blues aren't able to push up because they don't have that advantage, I'm going to focus the Supply Depot first, even though it'll be useful once we've pushed in, it takes far too long and sometimes we can't sustain those casualties (Better start thinking about that in PC, your clones are gonna be expensive).

If however, I see squads moving together and we're winning the fight on a supply depot, I'll leave it be and try to kill as many as possible so we can get the hack in. Now I know other tankers will simply kill it but it isn't "Oh look free points" because If we wanted more points we'd just go find a few enemies to kill, giving us more WP in a fraction of the time.

On CRUs,
When we have an objective hacked and we're guarding it (mostly when I'm providing overwatch on it) the last thing I want is two objectives to hold in the same area, I'm not going to do it and there's only one way I can only watch one, by eliminating the other so the CRU has to go. At this moment in time, the CRU offers no value other than a quick thing to hack and deploy a squad on an objective, and believe me, a capable squad will spawn very fast and take out your blue dots, atleast if they hack the Objective we have time before their squad spawns.

Maybe in the future the CRU will be the only one you can spawn at instead of the objective itself, but until then Tankers destroying it aren't trying to pad their score (again, this has a **** load of health and we'd be better off farming reds for an extra 50 WP) but trying to make sure a red doesn't manage to bring the entire area down because someone decided not to watch the CRU.


Your post makes me think you would prefer to have everyone play your way, but the fact is we don't. That HAV that you assume is just racking up kills and not hacking points? He just saved your ass from an entire squad moving up on your position. That sniper in the hills you assume is just farming? He just killed the two enemy snipers that were seconds away from pulling the trigger on you.

How do you know that the higher rewarded players aren't putting themselves in danger? I regularly get 2000-3000WP in a Skirmish, how? I'm doing things that are indirectly assisting my team. I will drive up and let my gunners get kills if I see it's needed, but otherwise I'm focusing purely on keeping enemy tanks away from you guys, stopping Dropships from getting past us and LAVs driving straight through our line to the next objective, and I have to say It works.

Point is, you're playing an insignificant Public Skirmish, you want more depth? Get involved with a Corporation who is planning on getting into FW/PC in the future, don't force the casual players into something because it doesn't fit your preferred playstyle.

Why are there so few of us willing to "hold the line" and defend?

Because it doesn't pay so well.

So, how can we incentivise defensive play? Reward it! I'm not saying the game should promote sitting at a control point waiting for an enemy attack which may never come - there's not much fun to be had there - but intelligent defensive play. Roving defence squads, maybe in an LAV or two, which keep an eye on the map (or get dispatched by the field commander when that feature gets implemented) and defend territory from enemy advances - that's smart gameplay. It doesn't seem unreasonable to give them some recognition for responding fast and repulsing attacks, rather than just rewarding the occasional kill they may get.