Why K:D, Deaths, streaks and other stats are bad, and how PS2 can evolve the genre - Page 32

TheDAWinz · 2012-07-23, 03:28 PM

Is this for reals?

Flaropri · 2012-07-23, 04:27 PM

"Death stats discourage teamplay" is an argument based in those stats being valued above other stats. Stats do nothing in and of themselves, they are only information, it is how they are used that matters.

Semantics aside, I have a few thoughts on your post:

1. You're focusing on overall impact. This is understandable, but it isn't the only aspect of the game. There are many people that like pouring over stats, charts, and numbers. Heck, look at the popularity of Football Manager 2012. How many gaming sites go over data and the meta-game, etc. This also includes people looking at personal stats, getting achievements or reaching personal goals. That is FUN for them, and they enjoy it.

Also, it can help an individual learn to do better at whatever role they have. Just because you're a medic doesn't mean you it is necessarily "good" to have a low KDA. You can learn to take less unnecessary risks if you find yourself dying too much regardless of the class, and over time, hopefully gain the experience to tell the difference between unnecessary and necessary

2. You're saying "team-play" but you really mean: "Objective play." The issue you seem to have is not that it discourages "team-play" but rather that it discourages non-kill-gaining risk. This is somewhat contentious, but logical within it's viewpoint.

A) In League of Legends, for example, KDA is important primarily for measuring current conditions, since death has such a large impact. In that game, people don't begrudge a support or tank for having few kills, or even more deaths than their team on average (up to a point). However, tracking deaths can give you good information about that players status, capability, and likely general item/XP level (at least in combination with CS). Also, there is a certain point where even a support or tank has died too much, and should take note of it and change tactics.

B) In most modern FPS games, victory is ephemeral, there is no incentive outside tournament play to win, while stats are persistent, so stats are more important than victory. In PS2, both are persistent, so you can't just transfer the experience and observation of those games directly, especially since Death isn't the only stat being tracked.

3. In my experience, having many deaths in a team-based means either the player is really, really bad and/or they aren't working with their team. Dying a lot can encourage people to do a different style of play that might be more effective for the situation... or they'll have succeeded and move on to the next objective. That includes working with more precise tactics as a team. It includes joining/creating an organized squad or platoon, or switching to/calling for medics/engineers to help people stay in the fight in spite of getting taken out often.

Again, I maintain that the problem is not with the stat, but with emphasis on it over victory or other stats such as objective captures/assists/defenses. By habit, I'm sure many players new to PS2 will probably focus on it at first, but that isn't something inherent to the stat, but rather to those other FPS games, and it is something that can be unlearned, and won't be a problem for those that just get into it fresh without that preconditioning.

This post has been in response to:

Originally Posted by Plunkies

Many points.

maradine · 2012-07-23, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by TheDAWinz

Is this for reals?

I know, right? How do you even argue with that when the subjective is presented as the objective?

GuyFawkes · 2012-07-23, 04:50 PM

I'm not for or against the OP, but I would like to point out that for the most part the use of k/d as a means to play is not necessarily the goal as to why people play but is a side product of how they play.

I'll give 2 examples. Take an organised outfit like Delta Triad, fast response ethos, constantly looking for the next thing to happen, good fights and generally looking at small group of good players taking on larger numbers and winning. This is a really healthy way to play a game, it pushes you to improve, face odds of other competitive outfits or superior numbers of enemies. Even if you were a medium level player, this environment would make you an above average player in time due to the experience you face and learn from. Having a good k/d ratio goes hand in hand with this.

Then take a large outfit similar to The Enclave, organising people takes time. People are gathering vehicles and taking 10 minutes just to recall back to base. Then there's the logistics of who is doing what, a lot of coordination. Sure, once they get rolling, they make a large impact on the battlefield in the short time they are actually 'playing', but then it's rinse and repeat once formations are dispersed or it dosen't go exactly to plan. In a nutshell you have a large number of people stood around, eventually go on their mission, might die without killing anything, and reform to do the same thing over and over. They have a terrible k/d but the overall effect of the teamwork has some success.

Both examples are effective, but the first has imbedded within it the means to improve as a player and k/d is mere sideproduct of that. The latter reduces the individual to a mere pawn, and k/d is not the goal, but the ethos is that you the individual are expendable for the greater good.

GLaDOS · 2012-07-23, 05:11 PM

How about we just track all stats, but have score on the page you go to when you click "Leaderboards," and if you really want to look at your other stats, like K/D, etc., then you just click on another, small link on that page. That means that the average player, who just wants to quickly see "how they're doing," will probably just look at his score and be like, "huh, okay, I suck/kick ass." However, if you're someone who's determined to find out your K/D 'cause you really care about it, then you can go to that other link, but it's a secondary leaderboard, and not what most people will be looking at/caring about. People will still be able to look at their kills and deaths if they really want to, but the majority probably won't, as score's importance will be emphasized (did I spell that right?).

Plunkies · 2012-07-23, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

I know, right? How do you even argue with that when the subjective is presented as the objective?

First of all that post was made at the same minute as my post so I don't think that vague and useless comment is something you should be latching on to so quickly.

Second, I'm not sure if you understand what those words mean. Subjective would be "I don't like death stats" or "death stats cause me unnecessary stress." These things can change from person to person and exist within the mind. Death stats having an impact on overall gameplay is objective. There IS an effect. Saying there is no effect would be an objectively incorrect answer.

Scoring and stat systems are used because they have an impact on reality. Because they change the way people play and by using a scoring system you can influence actions you want to promote and deter from actions you don't. You lose points for teamkilling, you gain points for healing. It's not arbitrary. They're promoting specific types of gameplay. It has REAL influence. Look no further than Tribes players playing the generator mini-game instead of the flag to see how scoring systems can go wrong.

Noxey · 2012-07-23, 06:08 PM

I think it would be a mistake not having a k/d stat in PS2, we also need kills leader boards.

Also: farming spawns is sometimes more productive than blowing them as your enemy's are spawning into instant death and being forced to spawn all over again ;x

Dart · 2012-07-23, 06:10 PM

Guys I hate to be the bearer of bad/good tidings here but let me assure you that K

, streaks and almost every other kind of stat tracking you can imagine is in PS2. In fact the Devs are so keen on it they're even creating an app for Android/iOS so you can track them from your iPad/tablet/smartphone.

If you don't like stat tracking, my profound advice is don't look at it.

Edit: Any chance we can get this entire thread locked or moved since it's now more ideological than anything and certainly not specific to the development of PS2.

Timealude · 2012-07-23, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Dart

Guys I hate to be the bearer of bad/good tidings here but let me assure you that K

, streaks and almost every other kind of stat tracking you can imagine is in PS2. In fact the Devs are so keen on it they're even creating an app for Android/iOS so you can track them from your iPad/tablet/smartphone.

If you don't like stat tracking, my profound advice is don't look at it.

Edit: Any chance we can get this entire thread locked or moved since it's now more ideological than anything and certainly not specific to the development of PS2.

I think what the op means is it makes so people wont advance forward, as in when your attacking a base you wont try to press in, like sending your heavy armored friends (MAXs) in to start clearing the room while your friends try to go for a control point of the objective. Now granted we only know a few of what the capture mechanics are going to be and it wont be like ps1 where we need to push forward through a hallway instead of trying to kill people while they keep spawning on the otherside to reenforce more. I dont see K

being that big of a problem like it was in the original since the bases are spread out and there's no need to actually rush forward to a single control console.

maradine · 2012-07-23, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Plunkies

Second, I'm not sure if you understand what those words mean. Subjective would be "I don't like death stats" or "death stats cause me unnecessary stress." These things can change from person to person and exist within the mind. Death stats having an impact on overall gameplay is objective. There IS an effect. Saying there is no effect would be an objectively incorrect answer.

Alas, were I only that ignorant.

The sentence that you have presented as objective is this:

"Death stats discourage teamplay" is a fact.

I argue that you have neither a statistical framework nor a sufficiently credible body of work to arrive at that conclusion. You can state it as a hypothesis, and provide reasonable arguments around it, but presenting it as a "fact" is not supported by any particular rigor. I agree with your conclusion, but your method is wanting. If you would like to further argue over the meaning of facts and opinions, I'm sure we can find a better venue for it.

Slightly more on-topic, I'd argue that KDR, presented as only one statistic among many, would have a minimal impact, whatever that might be. What is needed are additional metrics that we feel are valuable and should be emphasized, not subtraction of metrics we feel are not. If you feel that this strategy is implicitly catering to some sort of cultural "FPS least common denominator", you'd be absolutely correct. I am strongly of the opinion that the ivory tower team-play types need the zerg, the kill-whores, and every other subtype on the way for a survivable player-base.

Gonefshn · 2012-07-23, 06:38 PM

Couldn't agree more with the OP but I'm not crossing my fingers that this will resonate with the devs at all.

They want to provide what FPS gamers are expecting.
I always enjoy games more that don't feature K/D but that unfortunately doesn't resonate with most people.

Envenom · 2012-07-23, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Plunkies

An opinion is something that varies based on a personal views. Example: Apple tastes good, flower smells bad, game is unfun. A fact is truth originating from experience, observation and evidence. "Death stats discourage teamplay" is a fact.

Jerk your knee back down, sit quietly, and try to think rationally for a moment. How can this be? Well, what could deaths do? OVERALL, they could have no effect, they could promote teamplay, or they could discourage teamplay. These are the three things that could happen. These are not opinions that vary from one person to another, like whether an apple tastes good or a flower smells funny. These are actual consequences resulting in a persistent death display. An individual may be effected differently, but the overall change can only be one of these.

So looking at the first option, it could have no effect on every single person. Meaning no change. We know from this thread alone that the overall effect will not be neutral. So now we're down to only two possible outcomes. Does it promote or discourage teamplay? At this point it should be common sense but since you keep spewing the word "opinion" like you're making a point, I'll just have to keep slowly explaining things to you.

How can showing deaths help teamplay? Well, there's really only two ways. The first, if dying subtracts from a team resource. Battlefield has a ticket count for example. If your team has tickets and you are not wasting them, you are indirectly helping the team. This isn't, however, active TEAMPLAY. This is just an indirect benefit. The other way to decrease deaths while helping your team is an overall increase of skill. But with no proof that KDR actually increases the average skill of the player with access to it, it can not be directly attributed to the KDR stat. You could make a similar argument that KDR reduces overall skill because players will take fewer risks resulting in less experience in situations that demand an increased skill level.

And finally, how does the death count discourage teamplay? Well the closer you get to an objective, the more likely you are to die. I've already posted my 4.8 k/d battlefield profile with minimal objective points. Objectives are meatgrinders with highly concentrated fighting often requiring a high risk of death to attempt to achieve the victory conditions or deny them from the opposing team. Logically, someone avoiding deaths would avoid these situations. Also, all support roles suddenly become less attractive as well. Only repairing or healing, driver seats with no guns, transport vehicles, etc. Not much of a KDR when your role never get kills. These are typically very team oriented tasks and anyone wanting a higher KDR would be wise to avoid them. In addition to this, KDR also promotes more SOLO activities that don't involve teamplay and might not help much at all. Vehicle pad camping, spawn camping, sniping. In BF specifically, most mortar and MAV abuse was a direct result of people trying to pad their stats. I can go on and on with more... Spawning on a squad is a very high risk of death often with little pay off. Switching to a class that your team needs more but you're less effective with is discouraged. Playing AA or AV if your weapons are more likely to only be a deterrent rather than something that will actually get a kill.

Here's a very important one. If you're losing, go somewhere else. Fighting losing battles gets you killed. Fighting outnumbered gets you killed. When your team needs you the most you have the least incentive to be there. Once again, persistent death stats actively discourage teamplay. It is not an opinion. It is a fact based on observation and logic. If you disagree with this then please give some reasoning behind it, because I've heard none so far.

You know, I've always been a huge advocate of K/D, but after reading this post I think you've changed my mind. Whenever I play BF I am acutely aware of my K/D and tend to avoid situations (and Rush gameplay in general) because of lowering that score. You've convinced me; particularly your last paragraph QFT. When the battle starts turning, you get out of there to save your K/D, when in reality that's when your team needs you most.

Well played good sir.

Dart · 2012-07-23, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Timealude

I think what the op means is it makes so people wont advance forward, as in when your attacking a base you wont try to press in, like sending your heavy armored friends (MAXs) in to start clearing the room while your friends try to go for a control point of the objective. Now granted we only know a few of what the capture mechanics are going to be and it wont be like ps1 where we need to push forward through a hallway instead of trying to kill people while they keep spawning on the otherside to reenforce more. I dont see K

being that big of a problem like it was in the original since the bases are spread out and there's no need to actually rush forward to a single control console.

I fully understand what Malorn means. I understood when I read this thread in MARCH! My point is this has absolutely nothing to do with PS2 any more since these stats are such an integral part of the game that when you bring up the in game menu the first screen you see is your "character summary" which includes all of the statistics that you guys don't want to see tracked and many more besides.

Or to put it another way; it's over. Let it go. Pick your fights, you've lost this one.

BlazingSun · 2012-07-23, 07:33 PM

Is this discussion still going? I don't want to give anything away, but reaching a consensus is not going to happen.

FireWater · 2012-07-23, 07:41 PM

Well at the end of the day, stats are just numbers, people need to interpret them to achieve any meaning.

I totally get the meaning that there are in game behaviors that are valuable as kills. However, killing is a part of the game too, so I believe in my opinion it is important to list all valuable stats when making an assessment of a player. Stats to me show what I'm good at, and what I can improve upon. I'm the type of player who doesn't care who sees my mistakes because I am confident that my positive actions will outweigh my negative ones. However every player is different.

I think the main reason why a lot of players want KDR removed or hidden is because a fear of how that may impact their own gameplay, and gameplay overall for the game universe. That is an understandable point, however I would like to challenge that point.

I think KDR by itsself is meaningless. I think it needs to be added to a whole laundry list of other statistics. Its kind of like if you just judged a basketball player on how many points they score. Points are important, however its also important to look at Rebounds, Assists, steals, and block shots etc... to get a total idea of the player. Ben Wallace (professional basketball player) barely score 10 points game, however he also would pull down about 14 rebounds per game (anything in double digits for rebounds is AWESOME) and would often time hold the other team's best scorer under their average. If you just look at points, you would think Ben Wallace was below average at best. However when looking at his total stats, he becomes a defensive powerhouse, that would have been welcomed by any NBA team.

KDR to be an effective tool needs to be put in proper context, so that players can understand that there are other valuable behaviors other than gettings kills.