Why K:D, Deaths, streaks and other stats are bad, and how PS2 can evolve the genre - Page 13

Aurmanite · 2012-03-07, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Yeah I think people missed my sarcasm with tracking the fails, but the amount of support it has is truly disturbing.

We caught your sarcasm, chum. This is part of your problem. You think we don't understand what you're saying. We get it, we just disagree.

Corax · 2012-03-07, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

We caught your sarcasm, chum. This is part of your problem. You think we don't understand what you're saying. We get it, we just disagree.

This^

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-03-07, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Yeah I think people missed my sarcasm with tracking the fails, but the amount of support it has is truly disturbing.

Not missed. Ignored. Because tracking of fails is important too.

Corax · 2012-03-07, 10:48 PM

For the record too, if the "negative" stuff is tracked too, it gives you a full view of how your playing the game. If you see only the "good" then you cant objectively have an understanding of what is happening.

Basically the more information you have access too, the better you will be for it. And you should also try to stop making giant sweeping catch all statements about people and their play methods. Kinda makes ya look like a bit of a ponce when ya do.

Simple scientific method and what not. Gather all the info then make an objective call.

Personally if given the option to have more information over less information regarding statistics in a game. I will always be one for the fore rather then the later. But then again that is just me and how I approach the situation.

If YOU dont want all that info, then just ignore it. Overall it should literally have no impact in how you actually play this game from an individuals standpoint eh?

deltase · 2012-03-07, 11:30 PM

++++++++++1

Man that's a lot of text but everything is true as light! I don't like stats and kill streaks cause in games they block part of my screen with stupid announcements and kill achievements. For me they mean nothing at all, only real in-game skill matters.

Ragotag · 2012-03-07, 11:53 PM

Honestly, I don't see KDR stat tracking as either a terrible pro or a con. Some players are stat whores, other are not; I'm sure the two groups will find each other and enjoy the game in their own way.

That said, I do agree that any stat based on deaths (or per life) is a stat that focuses on solo performance more than team support. While score-based stats are an improvement over death-based stats in this regard, I don't think that they are the solution in that such a system will still likely focus more on solo performance over recognition for team support (as in, find the activity that gives the most score and just do that to farm a higher score per minute).

If we truly want a stat system that promotes a focus on team support, then one idea might be to base stats on missions. Any activity that contributes to a mission, success or fail, ought to be tracked -- not just kills -- as well as a missions accomplished verses missions attempted ratio (a mission success ratio) for each type of mission. In example, instead of KDR (Kill Death Ratio), we could track Infantry kills per mission, or Armor kills per mission (could throw in Air kills and Transport kills as well). Additionally, the game could track things like hacks per mission, or captures per mission, or revives per mission, etc.; maybe even a high level Score per Mission. IMO, these kinds of stats are much more representative of team support performance verses solo performance.

Tehroth · 2012-03-08, 12:00 AM

I think kdr really make a big difference in fps, even though I don't like the fact that people who willed be worried with their kdr won't charge in to die as often. I guess to balance this out give people special titles or something that are hard to obtain and leave out the kdr sytem?

**Malorn** · 2012-03-08, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Corax

If YOU dont want all that info, then just ignore it. Overall it should literally have no impact in how you actually play this game from an individuals standpoint eh?

I see this argument a lot in this thread. It's not relevant to the discussion. It isn't about what I as an individual value; it's about the behavior encouraged on the general population.

Figment · 2012-03-08, 03:05 AM

Looks to be a very vocal minority that likes K/D. Malorn, many of those that say put it in apparently are indifferent to it themselves, but think "the masses" expect it.

Screw "the masses", they may play bf and cod which may have it, but that does not mean they like it, it does not mean it is vital and it does not mean you cannot ever have a game without it anymore. Do what is best for PS2, do what is best for teamwork promotion: no death stats. End of.

Coreldan · 2012-03-08, 04:03 AM

When Brink didn't have kills and deaths, the masses sure complained, though.

I don't need or care for it myself, but the CoD/BF players sure complained hard for not having it

Majority don't give a shit if it's out to promote more teamwork, at this day and age they want to see their k/d.

Figment · 2012-03-08, 05:49 AM

Does it ever occur to people that just because they whine about getting it, it's still not always good idea to listen to immature little children?

What you need to do is convince them otherwise. Then they'll support that once they realise why and will call everyone else idiots too.

It's how fanboys work. Make them PS2 fanboys.

Coreldan · 2012-03-08, 05:54 AM

It's not always immature kids whining. More importantly, why would your opinion weight more than theirs?

Disclaimer: I still dont care about K/D either way, just dont like the type or argumenting where the people opposing your opinion are whining little kids or optionally fanboys

Also, I can tell you that Brink not having a K/D visible didnt do a squat in terms of encouraging teamwork in comparison to game with K/D visible. Hell, I've done more teamwork with pubs in BF3 than I ever managed to do in Brink

Or do it like America's Army 3 did it. You get like one point for a kill, but two points just for being in a line of sight to a friendly who is medicing another friendly. That game really encouraged and rewarded working as a squad, much more than it did killing. If you wanted to get any real scores in that game, killing wasnt the way to do it, it was just the "necessary evil" on getting the shit done

Such a shame, AA3 had so many fresh and unique things to it, but the Army cut the budget short and fired most of the devs halfway there leaving the game still in a horrible state. The gunplay and netcode are totally horrible. Even more so than PS1

Figment · 2012-03-08, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

It's not always immature kids whining. More importantly, why would your opinion weight more than theirs?

Actually the ones in favour are portraying them that way: "but we MUST have it cause THOSE GAMES have it, WAAAAH." That's whining.

Bit done with the topic. We gave our opinions, not much more to say on it. Up to the deaths, I mean, devs.

SKYeXile · 2012-03-08, 05:59 AM

seems the leaderboard might just before score and kills anyway

look at the bottom...just a summery though.

Coreldan · 2012-03-08, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Actually the ones in favour are portraying them that way: "but we MUST have it cause THOSE GAMES have it, WAAAAH." That's whining.

Bit done with the topic. We gave our opinions, not much more to say on it. Up to the deaths, I mean, devs.

Yeah well that is sorta whining yea. Then again, often the opposing camps arguments are equally shallow, although perhaps made in a more sophisticated manner