A Deathmatch Related Question

[Universezero]

I want to know what you guys think.

[Tunco]

Consider each kill as a plus and death as a minus. Therefore 4 - 3 is better than 6 - 7.

[Luminaflare]

4 kills to 3 deaths is better, not my opinion it just is. Here let me show you:

How well you've done isn't based on how many you've killed but your ratio, it's worked out Kills divided by Deaths, so 3 kills and 2 deaths would be a ratio of 1.5. Now 6 kills to 7 deaths is a ratio of 0.85 and 4 kills to 3 deaths is a ration of 1.3 and therefore is better.

[T3chno]

4k/3d

I'd rather have a person who gets one kill each round than a person who gets none in the first few and 2 in the third. I'm for consistency.

Of course, I'm applying this to TF2 Arena. x_x

[otters~1]

Of course, I'm applying this to TF2 Arena. x_x

Especially applicable to Arena. Take out one person on the other team and you've done your job; more is just icing. So ratio is much more important than total.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

2 votes for "6 kills, 7 deaths" means there are at least two morons who don't know how to divide numbers.

[Universezero]

2 votes for "6 kills, 7 deaths" means there are at least two morons who don't know how to divide numbers.

Either that, or they just believe that getting more kills is better, considering in most games you, personally, don't get penalized for deaths. The only negative is that your team may lose.
Basically it's a question asking "Which is more important; you, or the team?"
Good to see most of you have a social conscience.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

getting more kills is better, considering in most games you, personally, don't get penalized for deaths.

If deaths mean nothing, would you say that a player with 4 kills and 80 deaths is doing better than a player with 3 kills and 2 deaths?
It's pretty clear to me that the latter player is the more effective / the more skilled / doing "better".

The only negative is that your team may lose.

Considering this is a deathmatch, then teamwork is directly related to putting down more of the enemy than they can match. If you've got 6 kills but 7 deaths, than means you are failing to contribute as well to your team as someone with 4 kills and 3 deaths.
For most flag- or point-capture games, it's also the case that fewer opponents to attack you or to defend against you means an easier time for your team, and you're less helpful while waiting to respawn as a 6:7 than you are on the field as a 4:3.

[lord_day]

Don't you get penalized by giving the other team /more/ points?

[Universezero]

Don't you get penalized by giving the other team /more/ points?

Yeah, but some people don't care about the other team winning. Their only goal is to get as many kills as they can at any cost, because someone with more kills will level up faster than someone who plays more cautiously.

[Luminaflare]

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

[epigone]

I almost always look at KDR (kill to death ratio) as the baseline for how well I am playing. You want that ratio to be as far over 1 as possible.

[Universezero]

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

What's so bad about getting lots of deaths? If you get lots of kills, it's better, right? What bad happens if you get too many deaths?

[T3chno]

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

What's so bad about getting lots of deaths? If you get lots of kills, it's better, right? What bad happens if you get too many deaths?

Well, if you're not getting enough kills on your side and just die in Arena, you're just team filler.

Also are you assuming the poll's candidates got their KDR in the same time frame? If so, get the dude who got 7 deaths out of my team.

KDR>1 is generally what I go by in TF2.

[Twistkill]

K:D ratio is the basis for determining how "good" someone is doing in a deathmatch setting, but I think there's way too much emphasis on it. Then again we're talking about math here, and it's pretty objective, so I guess it stands as the primary factor.

However, you go over to Domination or Headquarters (in MW2 at least) or something and aim for a good K:D ratio and you can't whine when you lose the match.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

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

What's so bad about getting lots of deaths? If you get lots of kills, it's better, right? What bad happens if you get too many deaths?

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.

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.

[Snuggletummy]

Also, if you STILL don't understand what everyone is telling you here (Which I hope to God that you do..) then look at it the way that I see it. There are two people playing. One of them has 6 kills and 7 deaths. The other has 4 kills and 3 deaths. Use math, which I hope you passed. 6 - 7 = -1. 4 - 3 = 1. Anything above 0 is good, anything below 0 means you died a little too much.

[Luminaflare]

Your avatar is creepy as hell, also it's not taking the deaths away from the kills it's dividing kills by deaths which gives you your ratio, anything higher than 1 is good, below not so much (Although still for some DM scoring systems it is kills minus deaths so my argument would be moot in that case).

[Nexx]

Well, it might depend what the deaths are from and how the game works. Maybe the 6-7 guy has fallen to his death 7 times, and if for some reason that doesn't penalize his team's score, then he's doing better. But if we assume that each death either penalizes your team by 1 point or grants the other team 1 point (as is true of most deathmatch games), then the above arguments stand. And don't even get me started on team deathmatch with >2 teams.

But even in a different game type (assault, CTF, etc), the 6-7 guy still isn't better... though he's not necessarily any worse, either. Rather, kills and deaths alone are arbitrary because they don't represent the whole picture. For example, in CTF you may not have any kills at all but 3 captures, in which case you have definitely contributed to the team.

So in conclusion, emphasizing KDR for non-deathmatch game types is totally lame.

[smartalco]

^Or in BC2 (which I have been playing nearly religiously for a couple weeks), if you are defending, and go 2/30, but have disarmed objectives a bazillion times, you are better then the 10/0 sniper that is sitting across the map not even looking at the objective.

But that is an objective based mode, in Deathmatch, K/D must be > 1

[Snuggletummy]

Your avatar is creepy as hell, also it's not taking the deaths away from the kills it's dividing kills by deaths which gives you your ratio, anything higher than 1 is good, below not so much (Although still for some DM scoring systems it is kills minus deaths so my argument would be moot in that case).

No duh, I know it's not the deaths taking away the kills. But that's how all my friends see it. Why waste time dividing when instead we can do basic subtraction.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

But even in a different game type (assault, CTF, etc), the 6-7 guy still isn't better... though he's not necessarily any worse, either. Rather, kills and deaths alone are arbitrary because they don't represent the whole picture. For example, in CTF you may not have any kills at all but 3 captures, in which case you have definitely contributed to the team.

So in conclusion, emphasizing KDR for non-deathmatch game types is totally lame.

This is why I like to expand the term "Kill" in a non-deathmatch context to mean something much more ambiguous, but I keep the word "Kill" so that it's clear I'm still talking about a ratio of [competence] : [hardfail]. Different games give different points for captures, and I have few qualms about counting those points as "kills". For example, in Tribes, a flag capture is worth 10 points. This means that if I play a pacifist and do nothing but focus on flag runs, I can still be the reason my team wins and show it with a 20:10 KDR, because I've included my captures in my number of "Kills".

[Luminaflare]

Your avatar is creepy as hell, also it's not taking the deaths away from the kills it's dividing kills by deaths which gives you your ratio, anything higher than 1 is good, below not so much (Although still for some DM scoring systems it is kills minus deaths so my argument would be moot in that case).

No duh, I know it's not the deaths taking away the kills. But that's how all my friends see it. Why waste time dividing when instead we can do basic subtraction.

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

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Your avatar is creepy as hell, also it's not taking the deaths away from the kills it's dividing kills by deaths which gives you your ratio, anything higher than 1 is good, below not so much (Although still for some DM scoring systems it is kills minus deaths so my argument would be moot in that case).

No duh, I know it's not the deaths taking away the kills. But that's how all my friends see it. Why waste time dividing when instead we can do basic subtraction.

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

Call it 40:20, and I'll agree with you. I don't trust the KDR for players who have only been playing for a round or two.

[Yoshimo]

I generally only play Sauer, absolutely no kill penalty, so even if you die, it doesn't really matter that much. (of course, the other team still gets points, but this assumes that one or two of the deaths was suicide)

And of course, in CTF, KDR doesn't matter, as long as you can run the flag. Speaking of CTF, I generally score half the points for twitchy insta play and jump twisty shit. So, when I'm earning five points, (sauer max is ten) I'm technically able to equal one person on my team or just do better then the rest of them. My KDR is admittedly below one, but not by much.

In a /non/-teamplay match, though, low KDR isn't that hurtful, seeing as you could have six all to yourself and the seven times you died were spread out among players, only giving them one or two. A whole other topic, though.