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

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Figment

"K/D is everywhere so it should be in"

Argument ad numerum.

"Summer blockbusters should not have good plots, because all other summer blockbusters don't have good plots, even if it would make it a much better movie and a much better blockbuster, we should use the same formula as everyone else or risk failure."

Ballsy, isn't it.

Yet another strawman argument from you, Figment. And I had been agreeing with you so much lately.

A better comparison would be "Summer blockbusters should have explosions because all other summer blockbusters have explosions."

Yeah, explosions don't make the movie, but people come to expect them, but lets not get too far off on the metaphor.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

No I really am not.

You do know that the design of BF and CoD is to remove any dependencies on others. Like not having to stop to be healed, or rearmed.

Planetside and other Team based games like ET:QW, Brink, Tribes, and WWIIO are completely opposite. I'm all for modernizing the game, from the shooting model, to physics. But not at the cost of co-dependency and focus on the larger meta game.

If i wanted to run around and get lots of kills while someone happens upon a Control flag, I would play one of the 10000's of shooters out there.

If you do not understand the difference, I can't help you.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

You do know that the design of BF and CoD is to remove any dependencies on others.

Planetside and other Team based games like ET:QW, and Brink are completely opposite. I'm all for modernizing the game, from the shooting model, to physics. But not at the cost of co-dependency and focus on the larger meta game.

If i wanted to run around and get lots of kills while someone happens upon a Control flag, I would play one of the 10000's of shooters out there.

If you do not understand the difference, I can't help you.

Did you play the original?

Because I could heal and repair myself, wielding a chaingun and a heavy rocket launcher.

There was no co-dependency in Planetside.
Looks like there will be way more in Planetside 2.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

You do know that the design of BF and CoD is to remove any dependencies on others.

Planetside and other Team based games like ET:QW, Brink, Tribes, and WWIIO are completely opposite. I'm all for modernizing the game, from the shooting model, to physics. But not at the cost of co-dependency and focus on the larger meta game.

If i wanted to run around and get lots of kills while someone happens upon a Control flag, I would play one of the 10000's of shooters out there.

If you do not understand the difference, I can't help you.

All four of the games you listed are currently equivalent to gaming wastelands. Brink died a horrible death post launch. They are not examples you want to be using for this argument.

[Saintlycow]

Promote other scores over KD, such as captures.

Make sure that these TEAM objectives give far more exp and score than kills

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Did you play the original?

Because I could heal and repair myself, wielding a chaingun and a heavy rocket launcher.

There was no co-dependency in Planetside.
Looks like there will be way more in Planetside 2.

Yes I did. In the case of healing, even self healing. Its not he case where you just walk over a bag. But rely on squad mates to watch your back, because healing made you unable to move.

Ammo refresh also was the same.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Yes I did. In the case of healing, even self healing. Its not he case where you just walk over a bag. But rely on squad mates to watch your back, because healing made you unable to move.

Ammo refresh also was the same.

In Planetside
Everyone could heal
Everyone could repair
Everyone could HA/AV

But because there's K/D tracking in Planetside 2 there will be less co-dependence?

What the fuck are you saying man?

[MrBloodworth]

You did not read what was written.

Its OK if you want to go with "lolz every one had certs".

There is a stark difference in the act of healing in PS1, as opposed to BF series. It is intentional that they changed it, to support those that do not wish dependence on others.

This is one element that erodes the team play aspects. Its part of the over all design philosophy of "Playing alone, Together", that is most prevalent in the modern shooters, and MMORPG's of late.

K Promotes the individual, not the Team. Shifts the focus from team based objectives, to individual goals.

antithesis to Planetside and team based games.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

K Promotes the individual, not the Team. Shifts the focus from team based objectives, to individual goals.

I plan to play exclusively with people who are focused on whatever objectives we feel like achieving. We will farm all the solo K/D farmers into oblivion.

Sometimes our objectives will be to capture that base or reinforce those guys.

Other times our objective will be to kill every-fucking-thing that moves.

Both are valid gameplay styles. Both require team work and support to achieve.

Playing with good players is what separated the chumps from the champs in the original. You played it, you should know it.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Raymac

Yet another strawman argument from you, Figment. And I had been agreeing with you so much lately.

A better comparison would be "Summer blockbusters should have explosions because all other summer blockbusters have explosions."

Yeah, explosions don't make the movie, but people come to expect them, but lets not get too far off on the metaphor.

...Actually that was a pet peeve argument I had with the Micheal Bay fans over the TransFormers movies (which I predicted and found to be horrible tripe). People actually argued that the movie does not require a good plot and that it would actually be counter-productive if it had for the type of movie.

Go figure. :/

Either way, the argument in favour of them due to being expected, does not outweigh the negatives of behavioural influence from my point of view.


As said before, the kill stats and stats tracking diversity of kills etc is fine and should be in, but things like deaths are negative trackers. They don't reinforce positive emotions and don't contribute anything at all.

They have no actual meaning in a game that never ends. In a free-for-all deathmatch, K/D is different, sacrifice is not an issue, players are expected to optimise their K/D because it determines who wins the match directly (you die, you contribute to the other winning directly).

Just because a deathmatch or most deathmatches have it, doesn't mean everything should. Deaths and kills make sense in a casualty report of Total War as your next move depends on the number of troops remaining, but deaths do not matter at all in PlanetSide.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by Figment

As said before, the kill stats and stats tracking diversity of kills etc is fine and should be in, but things like deaths are negative trackers. They don't reinforce positive emotions and don't contribute anything at all.

Why do you believe negative emotions can't contribute?

Originally Posted by Figment

deaths do not matter at all in PlanetSide.

Yes they do. Otherwise the point for a medic is moot.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

You didn't read what you wrote.

Really you don't have a leg to stand on here...but some motherfuckers always try to ice skate up hill...

Its stated rather clear. You refuse to acknowledge that anything other than direct actions constitutes co-dependance. The Difference is a mechanical action.

That's your prerogative. But when discussing design, you cant ignore it.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

Yes they do. Otherwise the point for a medic is moot.

I'm actually wondering what the point of the medic class is, considering how fast people were dying and respawning in the GDC footage. Hopefully that was just sped up for the presentation, otherwise I don't see the medic contributing much at all.

[Malorn]

This what-you-could-do in PS1 is off-topic, but you could not always do everything in PS1. In the first couple years of PS1 cert limitations required you to work with others to to cover all your bases. As the certs increased and the certs got cheaper/packaged people started being able to do a lot more as individuals and not require anyone else. Eventually all the core abilities everyone could do by themselves and you didn't need specialization. This just shows the PS1 cert system did not scale well, which is part of the reason they moved to a class-based system in PS2.

What's on-topic is this - ask someone in BF3 how they did after a match. The vast majority of the time they will read you their K:D. BF3 also has "score" which tracks support activities, objectives, etc. The scoreboard is typically ranked by score not Kills, but that doesn't matter. Kills and deaths is the first two listed, score is the third. The culture has come to see K:D as the measure of success. It's a pathological situation. Take the death-stat out of the picture and everything changes. They could say "I got 10 kills" or they could read their score. Put score first and hide kills as a mouse-over function and people will report their score as how well they did, not K/D.

Suppose for a second that K/D is the primary measure of success. What does one do to improve this value? Well it's simple - you get in the most efficient killing machines, take the fewest risks, and take advantage of any situation that might pad your kill count. Does this make you better as a player? Does it mean you are a better asset to your empire? Sure it might in some twisted sense, but generally no, it doesn't.

Now suppose score or experience points earned is my measure of success. What does one do to improve this value? Well there are many things I could do. I could do all the things that I could do to improve K/D, like getting better at killing people, or getting in more efficient killing machines, but padding my kill count won't help me. I also have new and other things that can help, like capturing or defending objectives, assisting my teammates, or healing/repairing them. I can gradually improve my overall performance and impact to my team by improving on a number of axes. I could learn to shoot better (more kills), learn to use cover better (avoiding score lost while dead), pay more attention to wounded teammates and heal them, destroy spawn points, focus more on capturing objectives, providing my squad a spawn point, etc.

Over time, one could see their score/min and/or score/day improve as they get better at not only killing but also achieving objectives and helping teammates.

That's all goodness. It's innovative. It's productive. It makes for richer gameplay. By comparison, K:D is archaic, short-sighted, counter-productive, and completely unnecessary.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Its stated rather clear. You refuse to acknowledge that anything other than direct actions constitutes co-dependance. The Difference is a mechanical action.

That's your prerogative. But when discussing design, you cant ignore it.

You edited your post so I had to edit mine.