I second the notion of a Kill Count/Player win loose ratio

[George Bush's Bush]

When playing any multiplayer game, players like to be recognized and commended for their accomplishments. It is important for a fulfilling gaming experience, and paints a more recognizable picture as to who the player is.
Much like the military gives out medals and ribbons, WOR can issue the same commemorations and titles to players.

As Napoleon Bonaparte said "A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon."

[WolfE]

I get the idea, but in reality especially with line battles people wouldn't really know who got certain kills.
IIRC the CSA didn't give out medals to troops anyway.

[George Bush's Bush]

This is true but one of the beauty of games is that it is a game, in real life a compass wouldn't appear over your head and an objective area. Where is the line drawn? if we want more people on board I believe this would be an important feature. Some people play games just to be in the top three, otherwise they burn out and lose purpose.

[A. P. Hill]

Perhaps we are not seeking those top 3 players. Developers have made it clear from the beginning. No individual kill counts. Sorry.

[Oleander]

I wouldn't support this, it put emphasis on the individual instead of the group.

[Legion]

I'd like to see company kill counts but not individual counts.

[Legion]

From what I understand, that is the plan.

I know. I was just putting it out there.

[Lackay]

I wouldn't support this, it put emphasis on the individual instead of the group.

thats a good point

[George Bush's Bush]

I'm cool with company kills

[Takerith]

People are naturally selfish in this instance and like to see how well they themselves did, rather than how their group did. I'd propose to make it like Squad, where you can't see kill count until the game ends.