<!--quoteo(post=1916667:date=Mar 23 2012, 03:15 PM:name=sad. Clown)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sad. Clown @ Mar 23 2012, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916667"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How about they do away with counting deaths? I think that would solve a lot of the K/D issues, as it would only be K.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like knowing which 2 and 8 skulks wasted all the eggs when we're backlogged 3 spawns.
<!--quoteo(post=1916667:date=Mar 23 2012, 11:15 AM:name=sad. Clown)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sad. Clown @ Mar 23 2012, 11:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916667"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How about they do away with counting deaths? I think that would solve a lot of the K/D issues, as it would only be K.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about they get rid of losing. If either team is about to lose the game ends and a message pops up and says "Congratulations! Both teams did a good job!" The game is competitive and K/D matters even if it doesn't exactly tell you how much you contributed to your team.
<!--quoteo(post=1916677:date=Mar 23 2012, 10:11 PM:name=Dusk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dusk @ Mar 23 2012, 10:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916677"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How about they get rid of losing. If either team is about to lose the game ends and a message pops up and says "Congratulations! Both teams did a good job!" The game is competitive and K/D matters even if it doesn't exactly tell you how much you contributed to your team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just compared dying to losing. This is one of the negative side-effects of thinking KD matters.
<!--quoteo(post=1916677:date=Mar 23 2012, 03:11 PM:name=Dusk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dusk @ Mar 23 2012, 03:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916677"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How about they get rid of losing. If either team is about to lose the game ends and a message pops up and says "Congratulations! Both teams did a good job!" The game is competitive and K/D matters even if it doesn't exactly tell you how much you contributed to your team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh god that made me laugh.
i can't believe the K/D thread is alive still. I will solve it for you...
...both sides are right
K/D is important...If your whole team has excruciating low K/D... you will lose and it is not....If nobody does any of the support roles...you will lose
like all things in life it is not black and white.
I'm laughing because we just had 2 solid pages of frat boys posting screenshots. It was almost <i>too perfect</i>.
Why you gotta make me look wrong?
<!--quoteo(post=1916680:date=Mar 23 2012, 04:18 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Mar 23 2012, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916680"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You just compared dying to losing. This is one of the negative side-effects of thinking KD matters.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay dude enjoy dying a lot but still winning against bad players who don't know how to exercise their advantage. You're cool!
<!--quoteo(post=1914825:date=Mar 19 2012, 02:21 AM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Mar 19 2012, 02:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1914825"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please don't make excuses for a low KDR - it's great if you are filling a support role, but you could do it much more effectively if you died less. This is always true.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually it isn't, if you are playing a skulk and targetting buildings for example, you are probably more effective just dying, respawning, then heading back out at full health to kill the next extractor, rather than running back to the hive, healing, and going after another extractor, or running away at the first sign of trouble rather than sacrificing ability to fight back in order to finish it off.
<!--quoteo(post=1916877:date=Mar 23 2012, 10:51 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 23 2012, 10:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916877"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually it isn't, if you are playing a skulk and targetting buildings for example, you are probably more effective just dying, respawning, then heading back out at full health to kill the next extractor, rather than running back to the hive, healing, and going after another extractor, or running away at the first sign of trouble rather than sacrificing ability to fight back in order to finish it off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would agree if the game didn't have several sources of health regen, walljumping/running, creep vision, parasite and many other things...all mechanics that give you the ability to bite down res towers and escape without wasting your team's eggs. The problem is you have to make a mental leap to understand that instead of just rationalizing your lazy playstyle, which is why we have this thread.
Honestly, how hard is it to run up the res tower at computer lab, jump away and run to crossroads while you take 2-3 bullets and shrug them off? I do stuff like this all the time, because it's way more effective than "dying and coming back" AND "running all the way to the hive just because an enemy saw you"
When you resign yourself to dying and respawning instead of trying to survive, you are automatically robbing yourself and your team of map presence, information, flexibility and so on. You're also sorta telling yourself "you can't do better, so why try?"
Well, either you can try and run away the moment a marine comes into view, or you can sit behind the res tower and do say 20% more damage to it, which might be enough to kill it, although you won't have much chance to fight back.
You can't 'waste' eggs unless you're seriously running out of them, and if you're seriously running out of them then you're probably losing anyway. They don't cost anything and unless you are actually losing, you should be running to capacity most of the time, not using eggs when at capacity is the 'waste'.
A skulk using an egg or two every couple of minutes to kill res towers is not a waste, it is a sensible investment of resources.
Killing enemies is really not a very good way to win the game in general, you kill enemies if you have to, if they're going to do damage to you, or if they're in the way, but otherwise you really should just avoid them and kill structures, preferably extractors, because you'll do far more lasting damage. It doesn't even matter if you die, as long as you do enough damage before you do. There are no points for winning by a huge margin. The game doesn't care how you win, only that you do.
Yeah, it's okay if you're not pushing your eggs to the brink. However, I think it's better to always strive for not dying. There are times when doing the 20% more damage can be useful, and there are times when the marine players will kill you with the tower at 1% and then weld it, because you didn't escape sooner to plan an attack on him, or do damage elsewhere. If you always try for the more basic "stay and bite it", that's what the opponent will expect and be trying to fight against. It's hard to expect "the skulk leaves, goes to crossroads and bites that down, with the goal of luring me to the complab-crossroads connector where he and a team mate flank me." It sounds like I'm just going wild with theorycrafting, but this is how the game actually breaks down - when you're alive the <i>information </i>alone can be valuable enough to turn situations like that back in your favour, like the marine was never even there.
There's something to be said for 'dying intelligently', though. For instance, if you can die to bite down complab, respawn at flight control and then run toward crevice, you might save time over staying alive and running. If there's no hope going alone to crossroads/sub access, then you may have made the right choice. But I don't think those sorts of situations are as common as the ones where you can gain something by staying alive and pissing off the guy who tried to hunt you down. Either way, I like that we're exercising our brains thinking about this instead of posting scoreboards.
They <i>can </i>be as instrumental, but when the level of play increases they <i>won't</i>. One player has put several minutes less time into 'moving around the map seeing and doing stuff' by dying 1.5 times as much.
I'm watching MLG Starcraft 2 matches right now, and the instant someone knows they have enough of an army advantage to crush someone, they do it. There's often no hesitation, no opportunity for the other player to make a comeback while the opponent fails to recognize their situation. Quake duelling is the same - the instant someone knows they have a bigger stack than you, they will jump on you and rocket you to death, and shrug off whatever pitful damage you did back. NS2 will get there eventually.
actually, I would love to see a structure kill stat added to the scoreboard. A skulk that is spending his time hunting RT's for most of the match is likely to have an awful K/D ratio. that belies his help to the team though.
<!--quoteo(post=1916908:date=Mar 24 2012, 03:25 AM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Mar 24 2012, 03:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916908"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They <i>can </i>be as instrumental, but when the level of play increases they <i>won't</i>. One player has put several minutes less time into 'moving around the map seeing and doing stuff' by dying 1.5 times as much.
I'm watching MLG Starcraft 2 matches right now, and the instant someone knows they have enough of an army advantage to crush someone, they do it. There's often no hesitation, no opportunity for the other player to make a comeback while the opponent fails to recognize their situation. Quake duelling is the same - the instant someone knows they have a bigger stack than you, they will jump on you and rocket you to death, and shrug off whatever pitful damage you did back. NS2 will get there eventually.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That doesn't work with NS2 quite as well though because unlike starcraft, the NS2 strategic players do not have perfect knowledge of the strategic situation or control of their units.
<!--quoteo(post=1916910:date=Mar 24 2012, 03:29 AM:name=BonesX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BonesX @ Mar 24 2012, 03:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916910"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->actually, I would love to see a structure kill stat added to the scoreboard. A skulk that is spending his time hunting RT's for most of the match is likely to have an awful K/D ratio. that belies his help to the team though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I seem to recall one of the battlefield games tracked how many vehicles and base structures you destroyed, in additon to your kills. Something like that may be prudent.
<!--quoteo(post=1916915:date=Mar 23 2012, 11:34 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 23 2012, 11:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916915"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That doesn't work with NS2 quite as well though because unlike starcraft, the NS2 strategic players do not have perfect knowledge of the strategic situation or control of their units.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But you can have the equivalent to that when you get a coordinated team that's good at getting and using map knowledge
Striving to not die is like striving to not take damage. Yes, its obvious that not taking damage is better than taking damage, but when it is the main factor by which you judge your success, well then surely the best strategy is to simply hide under a rock?
<!--quoteo(post=1916980:date=Mar 24 2012, 05:29 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Mar 24 2012, 05:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Striving to not die is like striving to not take damage. Yes, its obvious that not taking damage is better than taking damage, but when it is the main factor by which you judge your success, well then surely the best strategy is to simply hide under a rock?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back when I was in public school about a hundred years ago, they told us this is called a slippery slope argument, and it's <b>not to be trusted!</b>
Anyone who is trying to look at this game from a fair perspective can intuit that you will take some damage (or lots) while doing what you need to do. It's still important to do what you can to minimize it while still being effective. The good players who carry you aren't hiding under rocks (unless they're regenerating health in crossroads..) - they're just positioning themselves to take as little damage as possible in each situation.
<!--quoteo(post=1917027:date=Mar 24 2012, 04:30 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Mar 24 2012, 04:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917027"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Back when I was in public school about a hundred years ago, they told us this is called a slippery slope argument, and it's <b>not to be trusted!</b>
Anyone who is trying to look at this game from a fair perspective can intuit that you will take some damage (or lots) while doing what you need to do. It's still important to do what you can to minimize it while still being effective. The good players who carry you aren't hiding under rocks (unless they're regenerating health in crossroads..) - they're just positioning themselves to take as little damage as possible in each situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A person who values KD above all else will never kill himself to respawn back at base, by definition. If you can concede that KD is not the most important part of the game, then your argument is null and void, because NS is a game of priorities. Even if killing things is only 1% less important than the next thing, that means it is always a second priority.
You don't defend an important location in order to kill things, you kill things in order to defend an important location. If there is a method that better defends a location that involves killing nothing, but dying yourself, then you obviously have to do whatever that is. This is because the important thing is not to kill, it is to defend.
<!--quoteo(post=1917034:date=Mar 24 2012, 04:43 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Mar 24 2012, 04:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917034"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->These people aren't smart and I'm not advocating for them. WHY CAN'T YOU FIGURE THIS OUT?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then your point has no merit. Are 10 kills better than 0? Yes Are 11 deaths better than 12? Yes Is 10 ping better than 50? Yes Is 50 FPS better than 30? Yes Is a score of 100 better than 99? Yes
Everybody knows these things. Doesn't mean they have a noteworthy affect on the outcome of a game.
As for figuring it out, here is what I think of people who over value KD: They go out of their way to get kills, and will sacrifice strategic advantage or disregard orders given in order to further improve their KD. Here is what you think of people who do not value KD at all: They go out of their way to get killed, and will never attempt to kill an enemy.
Which one is further from the truth and more ilogical?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's still important to do what you can to minimize it while still being effective.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> you got a point that people should try to die less regardless of what they are doing. the thing is, people will improve this anyway, just by playing the game: you don't have to tell them.
as for this thread, i think what's making us so mad is that it encourages people to put more focus on staying alive than is reasonable in terms of strategy: we fear it will cause artifical pressure which might eventually harm the team spirit in terms of taking risks for a higher cause.
still, you brought up some interesting details e.g. threatening presence. your initial post was just too provocative for people not to react like this.
I think the reason I am so opposed to this whole idea is because it exactly mirrors the way I play and regard Battlefield 3.
I almost always play recon, not to long range snipe, but so I can pick people up with motion trackers. I get extremely high KD ratios, usually never dropping below 4 or 5, but do absolutely nothing for the team. My KD and skill rating are both far far far above average, but my win loss is less than one. Is it because I am awesomely skilled? No. Its because I take only the safest route when doing anything. I will take aaages to move anywhere, making sure that there is absolutely nobody that will shoot me in the back while I do it. All the while my team loses points, and eventually the game.
I feel that it is this approach that you are advocating for NS2, which is why I don't like it.
<!--quoteo(post=1917059:date=Mar 24 2012, 11:37 AM:name=Laosh'Ra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Laosh'Ra @ Mar 24 2012, 11:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917059"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the thing is, people will improve this anyway, just by playing the game: you don't have to tell them.
as for this thread, i think what's making us so mad is that it encourages people to put more focus on staying alive than is reasonable<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the funny thing is some people DON'T improve their survival if they aren't told - that's why so many people are able to rationalize dying a lot because they bit some extractors down at some point, and they get into all kinds of fuzzy logic trying to justify their lazy play
I don't see how it puts more focus than what's reasonable. What is a reasonable amount of focus on survival? Like I told the other guy, I'm not saying you should hide in a corner the whole game.
<!--quoteo(post=1917063:date=Mar 24 2012, 11:57 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Mar 24 2012, 11:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917063"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the reason I am so opposed to this whole idea is because it exactly mirrors the way I play and regard Battlefield 3.
I almost always play recon, not to long range snipe, but so I can pick people up with motion trackers. I get extremely high KD ratios, usually never dropping below 4 or 5, but do absolutely nothing for the team. My KD and skill rating are both far far far above average, but my win loss is less than one. Is it because I am awesomely skilled? No. Its because I take only the safest route when doing anything. I will take aaages to move anywhere, making sure that there is absolutely nobody that will shoot me in the back while I do it. All the while my team loses points, and eventually the game.
I feel that it is this approach that you are advocating for NS2, which is why I don't like it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe your win:loss is low because the rest of your team isn't taking advantage of the fact that they have someone with a KDR of 5 who is giving them tons of information? It's sorta difficult to grasp how you're doing 'absolutely nothing' for your team. Don't sell yourself short!
One thing to consider about that playstyle is that you're going to areas where <b>you</b> would go if you were on the opposite team. If the enemy team has a player like you, you'll be matching them instead of letting them walk all over you from weird angles. If they don't, you can take full advantage of the fact that nobody is disturbing you (hence the giant KDR). Also, when you have free reign over a certain area you're free to switch up your playstyle and go for unexpected aggressive attacks. The fact that you're alive and the guys that died to make your KDR of 5 are not alive means you have more <b>flexibility </b>while they respawn. One of the ideas I wanted to get across is that you can play any style/role you want, and striving for a high KDR will be a big part of being effective with it.
Anyone who has played competitive TF2 should have a good idea of this - the scouts generally occupy the flank (not the main front), and as soon as they notice any sign of weakness they dig in further toward the enemy. When they do that, they can pick off key targets or just provide an opening for the rest of their team to push in when the enemy has to rearrange their forces to fight the scouts. The same thing is true with your sneaky recon playstyle - when your teammates work with you on it, you can all rack up tons of kills and be very successful. In NS2, something like a lerk or fade zipping around the flank creates the same effect (and then supports teammates when they meet up at some middle point).
Im surprised no one has mentioned dota or something like it, probably because its a rts game, but then Imbalanx touched on the very subject related to what matters.
As you know people in dota take their score seriously, theres always a ###### argument in a dota game over scores, noobs, bullsh*t really? Someone with a kd ratio of 16 - 2 does look better than a player whos 2 - 10. But why does the obvious thought slip everyones minds? that thought being "had that 16-2 player been around that 2-10 player the whole game, or even a majority of it- would both their scores be similar?
Team games require the effort of everyone, even the best of players can suffer negative scores on the battlefield. But you combine two players together and you really start to notice it.
Whenever i hear someone bragging about their sh*t in ns all i do is assume they do pretty much next to nothing at being helpful My rule of thumb is A good player who knows he is good doesnt brag. A player bragging about is score is either having a good day for once or is generally just sh*t at achieving anything that matters, (possibly baiting team members to improve his score)
Theres no convincing someone theyre useless when it comes to online gaming, theres either only denial or ignorance.
<!--quoteo(post=1917064:date=Mar 24 2012, 06:03 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Mar 24 2012, 06:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917064"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe your win:loss is low because the rest of your team isn't taking advantage of the fact that they have someone with a KDR of 5 who is giving them tons of information? It's sorta difficult to grasp how you're doing 'absolutely nothing' for your team. Don't sell yourself short!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No.
Here's an example from Quake CTF. Map: Space CTF. Red team captures 2 flags. Red team is leading. Blue team sits in base, collecting health/armor/rails, fragging like there's no tomorrow. At the end of the game blues have a vast KDR advantage. Red team wins, blue team loses, everyone has a bg. All because some people take Deathmatch mentality into Teamplay games.
P.S. Imbalanxd very nice concise dissecting of the thread there good sir. :3
Here's an example from Quake CTF. Map: Space CTF. Red team captures 2 flags. Red team is leading. Blue team sits in base, collecting health/armor/rails, fragging like there's no tomorrow. At the end of the game blues have a vast KDR advantage. Red team wins, blue team loses, everyone has a bg. All because some people take Deathmatch mentality into Teamplay games.
P.S. Imbalanxd very nice concise dissecting of the thread there good sir. :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but that is AN example. If you pull out just one example, any strategy in a game this dynamic can always be portrayed as bad. I see a lot of people doing this. "Well if that high KDR player is doing nothing useful then he's being useless!" Obviously. You're just creating a tautology and totally missing the point.
If people are trying to use KDR as a normative theory to explain what people should do, then there is probably little merit in their argument. But if you're using KDR as a descriptive analysis of how the game is going then there is much more value in that.
Here's an example from Quake CTF. Map: Space CTF. Red team captures 2 flags. Red team is leading. Blue team sits in base, collecting health/armor/rails, fragging like there's no tomorrow. At the end of the game blues have a vast KDR advantage. Red team wins, blue team loses, everyone has a bg. All because some people take Deathmatch mentality into Teamplay games.
P.S. Imbalanxd very nice concise dissecting of the thread there good sir. :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blue played the game totally wrong even though they got kills. That's all there is to say about your situation. It doesn't speak to what I was saying at all.
Also ctf with runes is for wusses. Plus, if you go play CA on campgrounds like a rune newbie, you can see KDR and deathmatch mentalities being all that matters in a team game. What do you say to that?
<!--quoteo(post=1917220:date=Mar 24 2012, 10:14 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Mar 24 2012, 10:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917220"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, but that is AN example. If you pull out just one example, any strategy in a game this dynamic can always be portrayed as bad. I see a lot of people doing this. "Well if that high KDR player is doing nothing useful then he's being useless!" Obviously. You're just creating a tautology and totally missing the point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was replying to a reply to an example. Not to the point of the thread.
<!--quoteo(post=1917235:date=Mar 24 2012, 11:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Mar 24 2012, 11:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917235"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Blue played the game totally wrong even though they got kills. That's all there is to say about your situation. It doesn't speak to what I was saying at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was providing an example to-go while fully disagreeing with you arguing Imbalanxd's ability to judge his own usefulness.
<!--quoteo(post=1917235:date=Mar 24 2012, 11:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Mar 24 2012, 11:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917235"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also ctf with runes is for wusses. Plus, if you go play CA on campgrounds like a rune newbie, you can see KDR and deathmatch mentalities being all that matters in a team game. What do you say to that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Space CTF doesn't have runes. CA is team <b>deathmatch</b> with a twist.
If you're so keen on continuing to advocate your ill-conceived deathmatch mentality, go ahead and reply some of the more interesting posts, like <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=117168&st=180&p=1917040&#entry1917040" target="_blank">this one.</a>
endarJoin Date: 2010-07-27Member: 73256Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1917072:date=Mar 25 2012, 03:19 AM:name=assbda)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (assbda @ Mar 25 2012, 03:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917072"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Im surprised no one has mentioned dota or something like it, probably because its a rts game, but then Imbalanx touched on the very subject related to what matters.
As you know people in dota take their score seriously, theres always a ###### argument in a dota game over scores, noobs, bullsh*t really? Someone with a kd ratio of 16 - 2 does look better than a player whos 2 - 10. But why does the obvious thought slip everyones minds? that thought being "had that 16-2 player been around that 2-10 player the whole game, or even a majority of it- would both their scores be similar?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dota is different, if you go 16-2, you will be higher level, have more cash/items etc than someone who is 2-10.
In NS2 the only difference is you might have more personal res IF you have been saving it, but then again if the guy is 2-10 and hasn't bought anything, and the guy who is 16-2 has died and lost 2 shotguns, he is 40 res down. Negligible really.
<!--quoteo(post=1917304:date=Mar 24 2012, 09:49 PM:name=endar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (endar @ Mar 24 2012, 09:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917304"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In NS2 the only difference is you might have more personal res IF you have been saving it, but then again if the guy is 2-10 and hasn't bought anything, and the guy who is 16-2 has died and lost 2 shotguns, he is 40 res down. Negligible really.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point of the thread is that's NOT the only difference. This is only true if you can only see the most basic, obvious resources in the game (the ones on the scoreboard). Read the original post in the thread!
Comments
I like knowing which 2 and 8 skulks wasted all the eggs when we're backlogged 3 spawns.
How about they get rid of losing. If either team is about to lose the game ends and a message pops up and says "Congratulations! Both teams did a good job!" The game is competitive and K/D matters even if it doesn't exactly tell you how much you contributed to your team.
You just compared dying to losing. This is one of the negative side-effects of thinking KD matters.
Oh god that made me laugh.
i can't believe the K/D thread is alive still.
I will solve it for you...
...both sides are right
K/D is important...If your whole team has excruciating low K/D... you will lose
and it is not....If nobody does any of the support roles...you will lose
like all things in life it is not black and white.
Why you gotta make me look wrong?
<!--quoteo(post=1916680:date=Mar 23 2012, 04:18 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Mar 23 2012, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916680"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You just compared dying to losing. This is one of the negative side-effects of thinking KD matters.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay dude enjoy dying a lot but still winning against bad players who don't know how to exercise their advantage. You're cool!
Actually it isn't, if you are playing a skulk and targetting buildings for example, you are probably more effective just dying, respawning, then heading back out at full health to kill the next extractor, rather than running back to the hive, healing, and going after another extractor, or running away at the first sign of trouble rather than sacrificing ability to fight back in order to finish it off.
I would agree if the game didn't have several sources of health regen, walljumping/running, creep vision, parasite and many other things...all mechanics that give you the ability to bite down res towers and escape without wasting your team's eggs. The problem is you have to make a mental leap to understand that instead of just rationalizing your lazy playstyle, which is why we have this thread.
Honestly, how hard is it to run up the res tower at computer lab, jump away and run to crossroads while you take 2-3 bullets and shrug them off? I do stuff like this all the time, because it's way more effective than "dying and coming back" AND "running all the way to the hive just because an enemy saw you"
When you resign yourself to dying and respawning instead of trying to survive, you are automatically robbing yourself and your team of map presence, information, flexibility and so on. You're also sorta telling yourself "you can't do better, so why try?"
You can't 'waste' eggs unless you're seriously running out of them, and if you're seriously running out of them then you're probably losing anyway. They don't cost anything and unless you are actually losing, you should be running to capacity most of the time, not using eggs when at capacity is the 'waste'.
A skulk using an egg or two every couple of minutes to kill res towers is not a waste, it is a sensible investment of resources.
Killing enemies is really not a very good way to win the game in general, you kill enemies if you have to, if they're going to do damage to you, or if they're in the way, but otherwise you really should just avoid them and kill structures, preferably extractors, because you'll do far more lasting damage. It doesn't even matter if you die, as long as you do enough damage before you do. There are no points for winning by a huge margin. The game doesn't care how you win, only that you do.
There's something to be said for 'dying intelligently', though. For instance, if you can die to bite down complab, respawn at flight control and then run toward crevice, you might save time over staying alive and running. If there's no hope going alone to crossroads/sub access, then you may have made the right choice. But I don't think those sorts of situations are as common as the ones where you can gain something by staying alive and pissing off the guy who tried to hunt you down. Either way, I like that we're exercising our brains thinking about this instead of posting scoreboards.
0-9 is not much better than 0-14, but both can be equally insrumental in winning the game.
I'm watching MLG Starcraft 2 matches right now, and the instant someone knows they have enough of an army advantage to crush someone, they do it. There's often no hesitation, no opportunity for the other player to make a comeback while the opponent fails to recognize their situation. Quake duelling is the same - the instant someone knows they have a bigger stack than you, they will jump on you and rocket you to death, and shrug off whatever pitful damage you did back. NS2 will get there eventually.
I'm watching MLG Starcraft 2 matches right now, and the instant someone knows they have enough of an army advantage to crush someone, they do it. There's often no hesitation, no opportunity for the other player to make a comeback while the opponent fails to recognize their situation. Quake duelling is the same - the instant someone knows they have a bigger stack than you, they will jump on you and rocket you to death, and shrug off whatever pitful damage you did back. NS2 will get there eventually.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That doesn't work with NS2 quite as well though because unlike starcraft, the NS2 strategic players do not have perfect knowledge of the strategic situation or control of their units.
<!--quoteo(post=1916910:date=Mar 24 2012, 03:29 AM:name=BonesX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BonesX @ Mar 24 2012, 03:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916910"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->actually, I would love to see a structure kill stat added to the scoreboard. A skulk that is spending his time hunting RT's for most of the match is likely to have an awful K/D ratio. that belies his help to the team though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I seem to recall one of the battlefield games tracked how many vehicles and base structures you destroyed, in additon to your kills. Something like that may be prudent.
But you can have the equivalent to that when you get a coordinated team that's good at getting and using map knowledge
Back when I was in public school about a hundred years ago, they told us this is called a slippery slope argument, and it's <b>not to be trusted!</b>
Anyone who is trying to look at this game from a fair perspective can intuit that you will take some damage (or lots) while doing what you need to do. It's still important to do what you can to minimize it while still being effective. The good players who carry you aren't hiding under rocks (unless they're regenerating health in crossroads..) - they're just positioning themselves to take as little damage as possible in each situation.
Anyone who is trying to look at this game from a fair perspective can intuit that you will take some damage (or lots) while doing what you need to do. It's still important to do what you can to minimize it while still being effective. The good players who carry you aren't hiding under rocks (unless they're regenerating health in crossroads..) - they're just positioning themselves to take as little damage as possible in each situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A person who values KD above all else will never kill himself to respawn back at base, by definition. If you can concede that KD is not the most important part of the game, then your argument is null and void, because NS is a game of priorities. Even if killing things is only 1% less important than the next thing, that means it is always a second priority.
You don't defend an important location in order to kill things, you kill things in order to defend an important location. If there is a method that better defends a location that involves killing nothing, but dying yourself, then you obviously have to do whatever that is. This is because the important thing is not to kill, it is to defend.
These people aren't smart and I'm not advocating for them. WHY CAN'T YOU FIGURE THIS OUT?
Then your point has no merit.
Are 10 kills better than 0? Yes
Are 11 deaths better than 12? Yes
Is 10 ping better than 50? Yes
Is 50 FPS better than 30? Yes
Is a score of 100 better than 99? Yes
Everybody knows these things. Doesn't mean they have a noteworthy affect on the outcome of a game.
As for figuring it out, here is what I think of people who over value KD: They go out of their way to get kills, and will sacrifice strategic advantage or disregard orders given in order to further improve their KD.
Here is what you think of people who do not value KD at all: They go out of their way to get killed, and will never attempt to kill an enemy.
Which one is further from the truth and more ilogical?
you got a point that people should try to die less regardless of what they are doing.
the thing is, people will improve this anyway, just by playing the game: you don't have to tell them.
as for this thread, i think what's making us so mad is that it encourages people to put more focus on staying alive than is reasonable in terms of
strategy: we fear it will cause artifical pressure which might eventually harm the team spirit in terms of taking risks for a higher cause.
still, you brought up some interesting details e.g. threatening presence. your initial post was just too provocative for people not to react like this.
I almost always play recon, not to long range snipe, but so I can pick people up with motion trackers. I get extremely high KD ratios, usually never dropping below 4 or 5, but do absolutely nothing for the team. My KD and skill rating are both far far far above average, but my win loss is less than one. Is it because I am awesomely skilled? No. Its because I take only the safest route when doing anything. I will take aaages to move anywhere, making sure that there is absolutely nobody that will shoot me in the back while I do it. All the while my team loses points, and eventually the game.
I feel that it is this approach that you are advocating for NS2, which is why I don't like it.
as for this thread, i think what's making us so mad is that it encourages people to put more focus on staying alive than is reasonable<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the funny thing is some people DON'T improve their survival if they aren't told - that's why so many people are able to rationalize dying a lot because they bit some extractors down at some point, and they get into all kinds of fuzzy logic trying to justify their lazy play
I don't see how it puts more focus than what's reasonable. What is a reasonable amount of focus on survival? Like I told the other guy, I'm not saying you should hide in a corner the whole game.
<!--quoteo(post=1917063:date=Mar 24 2012, 11:57 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Mar 24 2012, 11:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917063"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the reason I am so opposed to this whole idea is because it exactly mirrors the way I play and regard Battlefield 3.
I almost always play recon, not to long range snipe, but so I can pick people up with motion trackers. I get extremely high KD ratios, usually never dropping below 4 or 5, but do absolutely nothing for the team. My KD and skill rating are both far far far above average, but my win loss is less than one. Is it because I am awesomely skilled? No. Its because I take only the safest route when doing anything. I will take aaages to move anywhere, making sure that there is absolutely nobody that will shoot me in the back while I do it. All the while my team loses points, and eventually the game.
I feel that it is this approach that you are advocating for NS2, which is why I don't like it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe your win:loss is low because the rest of your team isn't taking advantage of the fact that they have someone with a KDR of 5 who is giving them tons of information? It's sorta difficult to grasp how you're doing 'absolutely nothing' for your team. Don't sell yourself short!
One thing to consider about that playstyle is that you're going to areas where <b>you</b> would go if you were on the opposite team. If the enemy team has a player like you, you'll be matching them instead of letting them walk all over you from weird angles. If they don't, you can take full advantage of the fact that nobody is disturbing you (hence the giant KDR). Also, when you have free reign over a certain area you're free to switch up your playstyle and go for unexpected aggressive attacks. The fact that you're alive and the guys that died to make your KDR of 5 are not alive means you have more <b>flexibility </b>while they respawn. One of the ideas I wanted to get across is that you can play any style/role you want, and striving for a high KDR will be a big part of being effective with it.
Anyone who has played competitive TF2 should have a good idea of this - the scouts generally occupy the flank (not the main front), and as soon as they notice any sign of weakness they dig in further toward the enemy. When they do that, they can pick off key targets or just provide an opening for the rest of their team to push in when the enemy has to rearrange their forces to fight the scouts. The same thing is true with your sneaky recon playstyle - when your teammates work with you on it, you can all rack up tons of kills and be very successful. In NS2, something like a lerk or fade zipping around the flank creates the same effect (and then supports teammates when they meet up at some middle point).
As you know people in dota take their score seriously, theres always a ###### argument in a dota game over scores, noobs, bullsh*t really?
Someone with a kd ratio of 16 - 2 does look better than a player whos 2 - 10. But why does the obvious thought slip everyones minds? that thought being "had that 16-2 player been around that 2-10 player the whole game, or even a majority of it- would both their scores be similar?
Team games require the effort of everyone, even the best of players can suffer negative scores on the battlefield. But you combine two players together and you really start to notice it.
Whenever i hear someone bragging about their sh*t in ns all i do is assume they do pretty much next to nothing at being helpful
My rule of thumb is
A good player who knows he is good doesnt brag.
A player bragging about is score is either having a good day for once or is generally just sh*t at achieving anything that matters, (possibly baiting team members to improve his score)
Theres no convincing someone theyre useless when it comes to online gaming, theres either only denial or ignorance.
No.
Here's an example from Quake CTF. Map: Space CTF. Red team captures 2 flags. Red team is leading. Blue team sits in base, collecting health/armor/rails, fragging like there's no tomorrow. At the end of the game blues have a vast KDR advantage. Red team wins, blue team loses, everyone has a bg. All because some people take Deathmatch mentality into Teamplay games.
P.S. Imbalanxd very nice concise dissecting of the thread there good sir. :3
Here's an example from Quake CTF. Map: Space CTF. Red team captures 2 flags. Red team is leading. Blue team sits in base, collecting health/armor/rails, fragging like there's no tomorrow. At the end of the game blues have a vast KDR advantage. Red team wins, blue team loses, everyone has a bg. All because some people take Deathmatch mentality into Teamplay games.
P.S. Imbalanxd very nice concise dissecting of the thread there good sir. :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but that is AN example. If you pull out just one example, any strategy in a game this dynamic can always be portrayed as bad. I see a lot of people doing this. "Well if that high KDR player is doing nothing useful then he's being useless!" Obviously. You're just creating a tautology and totally missing the point.
If people are trying to use KDR as a normative theory to explain what people should do, then there is probably little merit in their argument. But if you're using KDR as a descriptive analysis of how the game is going then there is much more value in that.
Here's an example from Quake CTF. Map: Space CTF. Red team captures 2 flags. Red team is leading. Blue team sits in base, collecting health/armor/rails, fragging like there's no tomorrow. At the end of the game blues have a vast KDR advantage. Red team wins, blue team loses, everyone has a bg. All because some people take Deathmatch mentality into Teamplay games.
P.S. Imbalanxd very nice concise dissecting of the thread there good sir. :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blue played the game totally wrong even though they got kills. That's all there is to say about your situation. It doesn't speak to what I was saying at all.
Also ctf with runes is for wusses. Plus, if you go play CA on campgrounds like a rune newbie, you can see KDR and deathmatch mentalities being all that matters in a team game. What do you say to that?
I was replying to a reply to an example. Not to the point of the thread.
<!--quoteo(post=1917235:date=Mar 24 2012, 11:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Mar 24 2012, 11:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917235"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Blue played the game totally wrong even though they got kills. That's all there is to say about your situation. It doesn't speak to what I was saying at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was providing an example to-go while fully disagreeing with you arguing Imbalanxd's ability to judge his own usefulness.
<!--quoteo(post=1917235:date=Mar 24 2012, 11:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Mar 24 2012, 11:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1917235"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also ctf with runes is for wusses. Plus, if you go play CA on campgrounds like a rune newbie, you can see KDR and deathmatch mentalities being all that matters in a team game. What do you say to that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Space CTF doesn't have runes. CA is team <b>deathmatch</b> with a twist.
If you're so keen on continuing to advocate your ill-conceived deathmatch mentality, go ahead and reply some of the more interesting posts, like <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=117168&st=180&p=1917040&#entry1917040" target="_blank">this one.</a>
As you know people in dota take their score seriously, theres always a ###### argument in a dota game over scores, noobs, bullsh*t really?
Someone with a kd ratio of 16 - 2 does look better than a player whos 2 - 10. But why does the obvious thought slip everyones minds? that thought being "had that 16-2 player been around that 2-10 player the whole game, or even a majority of it- would both their scores be similar?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dota is different, if you go 16-2, you will be higher level, have more cash/items etc than someone who is 2-10.
In NS2 the only difference is you might have more personal res IF you have been saving it, but then again if the guy is 2-10 and hasn't bought anything, and the guy who is 16-2 has died and lost 2 shotguns, he is 40 res down. Negligible really.
The point of the thread is that's NOT the only difference. This is only true if you can only see the most basic, obvious resources in the game (the ones on the scoreboard). Read the original post in the thread!