A Deathmatch Related Question

[smartalco]

4 kills to two deaths is still better than 400 kills to 300 deaths.

It is a better K/D ratio, yes, but in a pure team deathmatch situation? I'd take the 400/300. (He is, after all, +100 for your team)

[Universezero]

Oh my God, fucking pay attention. This has been said, like, eleven times or something. Stop pretending that deaths don't count for anything.
6 kills means you got 6 points for your team.
7 deaths means you gave 7 points to the other team.
Your net contribution was 1 point to the other team. If you had not participated, your team would have 6 less points and the enemy team would have 7 less points. By playing, you were a greater help to the enemy team than you were to your own team.
Furthermore, if your KDR was 6:7 and another player's was 4:3, that's an indication of competence that I will use if I have a say as to which of you I'd like to have on my team.

If you've got major cojones and charge brazenly into battle every time you spawn, getting an 11:50 KDR, you are still a worse player than a camper coward with a KDR of 2:0. Sure, you gave our team 9 more points than he did, but you also gave the enemy team 50 more points than he did. I have no idea what kind of bizarre understanding of scoring systems you have that would make you so insistently disregard your number of deaths, but it's straight-up wrong. I would rather have camper coward than you, primarily because having camper coward on my team doesn't mean it's Christmas come early for the other team, as it would be if you were on my team instead.

Notice the recurring word in there? "Team". All you seem to be concentrating on is winning the match. When I play Modern Warfare, most of the time I try to get as many kills as possible. This can result in a large amount of deaths, but doesn't always. I don't give a crap about the rest of my team; if they win, they win, if they lose, they lose. All I care about is getting as many kills as possible, and thus as much XP as possible. This may change if I'm playing a private match, or in a match against people I know. Then things become more personal.

[Luminaflare]

Oh my God, fucking pay attention. This has been said, like, eleven times or something. Stop pretending that deaths don't count for anything.
6 kills means you got 6 points for your team.
7 deaths means you gave 7 points to the other team.
Your net contribution was 1 point to the other team. If you had not participated, your team would have 6 less points and the enemy team would have 7 less points. By playing, you were a greater help to the enemy team than you were to your own team.
Furthermore, if your KDR was 6:7 and another player's was 4:3, that's an indication of competence that I will use if I have a say as to which of you I'd like to have on my team.

If you've got major cojones and charge brazenly into battle every time you spawn, getting an 11:50 KDR, you are still a worse player than a camper coward with a KDR of 2:0. Sure, you gave our team 9 more points than he did, but you also gave the enemy team 50 more points than he did. I have no idea what kind of bizarre understanding of scoring systems you have that would make you so insistently disregard your number of deaths, but it's straight-up wrong. I would rather have camper coward than you, primarily because having camper coward on my team doesn't mean it's Christmas come early for the other team, as it would be if you were on my team instead.

Notice the recurring word in there? "Team". All you seem to be concentrating on is winning the match. When I play Modern Warfare, most of the time I try to get as many kills as possible. This can result in a large amount of deaths, but doesn't always. I don't give a crap about the rest of my team; if they win, they win, if they lose, they lose. All I care about is getting as many kills as possible, and thus as much XP as possible. This may change if I'm playing a private match, or in a match against people I know. Then things become more personal.

Remind me to never play games with you.

Also Tsuki that was an extreme example.

One thing this argument doesn't take in to consideration is score, how you died and when you died, If the guy who got 400 kills did that before failing horribly and dieing (someone please check the spelling on that) 300 times he'd probably have won you the match but if he died 300 times by running in to an enemy kill zone before killing people 400 times he'll probably have given the enemy team such a huge score that you've lost the match. What if those deaths were suicides? A lot of games have those as personal penalties (minus XP) but no team penalties. Also if the match gives you say 10 points per kill but 1000 per objective completed the player who gets 5 objectives but no kills would still be a better player. The better way to do it would be a points per death ratio, that would account for kills, flag captures, windows covered in orange juice, monkeys tamed or whatever can gives you points. Another thing is time if some player has a higher Deaths to kills than another player but manages to kill a lot more dudes in less time he could arguably be better so another possible ration could be kills per minute per death (or point instead of kills as previously mentioned).

Either way in Universe Zero's world of fuck the team I'll ignore the win bonus and just kill stuff to watch a number go up gradually this is all a moot point since the only thing a K/D ratio is relevant to is if you really want that player on the team balancing.

A

[smartalco]

Notice the recurring word in there? "Team". All you seem to be concentrating on is winning the match. When I play Modern Warfare, most of the time I try to get as many kills as possible. This can result in a large amount of deaths, but doesn't always. I don't give a crap about the rest of my team; if they win, they win, if they lose, they lose. All I care about is getting as many kills as possible, and thus as much XP as possible. This may change if I'm playing a private match, or in a match against people I know. Then things become more personal.

The go play free-for-all deathmatch, not team deathmatch you ass.

[Nexx]

Notice the recurring word in there? "Team". All you seem to be concentrating on is winning the match. When I play Modern Warfare, most of the time I try to get as many kills as possible. This can result in a large amount of deaths, but doesn't always. I don't give a crap about the rest of my team; if they win, they win, if they lose, they lose. All I care about is getting as many kills as possible, and thus as much XP as possible. This may change if I'm playing a private match, or in a match against people I know. Then things become more personal.

Based on the way you phrased your first three sentences, I'm going to assume this is a non-deathmatch setting. (Because if it isn't, please see smartalco's post above)

Therefore, again, this is why emphasizing kills or KDR in a non-deathmatch setting is totally lame: it makes certain players not care about the team and only care about their kill or KDR stats, making it harder for the rest of their team members who are actually playing for the team like they're supposed to (because that's the point of a team game). Now if you are truly doing it for the reasons you've given, it might not be bad because I imagine you may need XP to make your character more powerful. But even so, what about when you've got a fair amount of XP? Do you still tend to disregard the team at that point?

[Universezero]

Based on the way you phrased your first three sentences, I'm going to assume this is a non-deathmatch setting. (Because if it isn't, please see smartalco's post above)

Therefore, again, this is why emphasizing kills or KDR in a non-deathmatch setting is totally lame: it makes certain players not care about the team and only care about their kill or KDR stats, making it harder for the rest of their team members who are actually playing for the team like they're supposed to (because that's the point of a team game). Now if you are truly doing it for the reasons you've given, it might not be bad because I imagine you may need XP to make your character more powerful. But even so, what about when you've got a fair amount of XP? Do you still tend to disregard the team at that point?

Oh, I'm not saying I disregard my team. I actually voted for the second option on the pole; I'm just arguing this because it seems that no-one else is looking at the other side of the argument. I also find that funny, that you guys say 'Oh your argument is OK as long as you play free for all', but also say 'It's not OK if you use that tactic in a team deathmatch'. What's the difference? You guys are too sympathetic towards your teams. Or maybe I'm just a dick. :\

[T3chno]

Oh, I'm not saying I disregard my team. I actually voted for the second option on the pole; I'm just arguing this because it seems that no-one else is looking at the other side of the argument. I also find that funny, that you guys say 'Oh your argument is OK as long as you play free for all', but also say 'It's not OK if you use that tactic in a team deathmatch'. What's the difference? You guys are too sympathetic towards your teams. Or maybe I'm just a dick. :\

Specifically for my lines: it's called Team Fortress 2.

And this is deathmatch, so your life has a little more value than if you were playing something like capture the flag.

[smartalco]

Or maybe I'm just a dick. :\

Mainly this. It is called team deathmatch for a reason.

[Nexx]

Oh, I'm not saying I disregard my team. I actually voted for the second option on the pole; I'm just arguing this because it seems that no-one else is looking at the other side of the argument. I also find that funny, that you guys say 'Oh your argument is OK as long as you play free for all', but also say 'It's not OK if you use that tactic in a team deathmatch'. What's the difference? You guys are too sympathetic towards your teams. Or maybe I'm just a dick. :\

Maybe it depends what game you are playing, but I think you have a valid point for deathmatch. I haven't played a new FPS in ages because my computer is from the stone age, but it rather seems to me that there isn't a significant difference between FFA deathmatch and team deathmatch except that in team deathmatch you try to stay with your teammates as much as possible so you can win the small battles with numbers. Otherwise it's simply: try to kill as many enemies as possible while trying to die as little as possible. There just isn't room for a lot of team-oriented play because the team tends to be scattered and there's usually not much concern for territory control. For pretty much any other game type, however, you'd be a dick to not to change your play style for the benefit of the team.

[Snuggletummy]

So, UniverseZero, would it be easier if we used a real life situation? Take Cho Seung-Hui, A.K.A. master of the Virginia Tech Massacre. At the end of his reign he scored 30 frags, 17 assists, and 1 suicide. Now, do you think he did good? Or do you think he did bad?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

it seems that no-one else is looking at the other side of the argument.... that you guys say 'Oh your argument is OK as long as you play free for all', but also say 'It's not OK if you use that tactic in a team deathmatch'. What's the difference? You guys are too sympathetic towards your teams. Or maybe I'm just a dick. :\

And I fucking dare you to try to make the point that you're there to enjoy yourself and not worry about the score, because that's exactly what you were speaking against earlier when you criticized focus on KDR for encouraging playing only for oneself.

[kai]

Metanet: Where 2 out of 10 people can't do basic math or understand video game deathmatch mechanics.

... and one that really doesnt give a flying fuck.

it depends on the game and if its one that doesnt penalize points for deaths, ill go for 6:7. and if it does penalize for deaths, ill still go with 6:7 seeing as MOST games take half the points you would get for a kill if you die if any at all. ive had rounds were i had 25:32 and me and my team still kicked ass, so really it depends on your style of gaming and how good your teams are.

if theres a sniper on the hill, and he's already killed me twice, guess what? im gonna find a way to kill him no matter how many times he gets me, and when i do get him, ill make sure his journey back wont be so easy (via dropped sniper rifle and any explosives if there are any).

[Nexx]

Metanet: Where 2 out of 10 people can't do basic math or understand video game deathmatch mechanics.

... and one that really doesnt give a flying fuck.

Actually I think you fall under the 2. :/
Consider the following:

and if it does penalize for deaths, ill still go with 6:7 seeing as MOST games take half the points you would get for a kill if you die if any at all.

(1) I hope you're talking about suicides or non-combat deaths (i.e. from falling) here, because most of the time, your death is from combat (intentional or accidental), and that means that either the other team gets credit for that kill, or your team loses credit for that kill (because usually TKs are penalized in a deathmatch game).
(2) Even if you are talking about only suicides or non-combat deaths, I don't know why you think most games don't penalize players for those. Of course those should be penalized! Otherwise people could just deny the other team points so long as they could kill themselves before the other team finished the job.

ive had rounds were i had 25:32 and me and my team still kicked ass, so really it depends on your style of gaming and how good your teams are.

(1) Looking at how well the rest of the team did is completely irrelevant. We're talking about personal contribution to the team here.
(2) 25:32 is not a good round for yourself, period. Even if the mechanics of the game are such your personal score was positive, a <1 KDR is not so hot. Plus, in all the games I've played and seen, a <1 KDR results in an overall negative contribution to your team no matter what the deaths were from (as has been said several times in this thread already).