More kills usually equals more wins....

(V1cK_dB) #1

So I’ve been checking the last 10 games on the stats site for a few days now and I’ve come to the realization that only about 10% of the time does the team with fewer kills win the game. 90% of the time the team with more kills wins the match.

I know I know kills or k/d ratio don’t matter in Brink but the facts don’t support that statement. Now to be fair in my matches if the team isn’t playing for the objective I will become whatever class I need to be to get the objective and I’m a fairly good slayer but my point stands. There have been some very well written posts on here lately in support of showing deaths and I completely agree.

Why is everyone so worried about e-peens breaking your e-hearts? I don’t think it will change the way the game is played because about 40% of the games I play now people don’t play for the objective lol…without a k/d ratio. Now that SD has doubled the xp for objectives that should help people want to get the objective.

I love the game but I don’t want to be the only one playing it and if showing deaths (GASP!) means more players then I’m all for it. I also believe that a TDM with limited respawns or an elimination gametype would be awesome in this game. I used to play RTCW elimination mode and it was the best experience I’ve ever had in FPS games. Medics are critical for health and revives, Liets (Soldiers) were awesome for ammo and in Brink even the engineer has some good uses to hold down certain points in a map. This requires a good amount of teamwork and would be good for Brink.

I don’t think that would takeaway from what Brink is. IMO what makes Brink cool is not exclusively the Objective gametype. It’s the movement, shooting (no OHK, hipfire) and class system. You lose NONE of that in an elimination mode and therefore doesn’t become a COD clone. If anything it amplifies those differences because every life is critical to success in that mode.

Thoughts?

(Je T´aime) #2

Idd when your team have more killls usually you are in the better team 24/7, about TDM and k/D or whatever why not game have now around 2300 active players so can´t hurt it more, it might even help it.

(Mad Hatter) #3

It might help sales, but you do realize that they would have to drastically re-balance…everything if they were to implement a TDM mode, right? It would be a pretty big undertaking, to say the least. Brink needs objectives to stay balanced, I believe.

Not to say that new modes couldn’t be added at some point, I just think that they would be better off having some sort of objective to them aside from just straight, 100% “kill the other guys.”

And I’m not even going to comment on the K/D issue aside from saying that yes, while killing is important, your K/D ratio is not–at all.

(V1cK_dB) #4

[QUOTE=Mad Hatter;332714]It might help sales, but you do realize that they would have to drastically re-balance…everything if they were to implement a TDM mode, right? It would be a pretty big undertaking, to say the least. Brink needs objectives to stay balanced, I believe.

Not to say that new modes couldn’t be added at some point, I just think that they would be better off having some sort of objective to them aside from just straight, 100% “kill the other guys.”

And I’m not even going to comment on the K/D issue aside from saying that yes, while killing is important, your K/D ratio is not–at all.[/QUOTE]

I disagree that k/d is not important at all. Pressing x to do an objective is not difficult to do. Doing the objective while helping kill the other team, staying alive, etc…that is difficult. If you are the primary objective getting person then yes your k/d might be lower than a slayer soldier for example but your k/d shouldn’t be a .20 either. If your k/d is that low…you need to get better at the game. IMO.

As far as having to completely rebalance for TDM…maybe. In an elimination mode however I don’t think they have to do much. In RTCW they just had the same maps but got rid of the objectives. The classes had the same abilities and the matches were extremely fun. Like I said before in Brink it would be the same and it would be a different experience from the COD clones out there. What makes a game a COD clone isn’t an elimination gametype or TDM…its OHK, slow movement, ADS for everything and things like killstreaks. Brink wouldn’t have any of that so it would remain different.

(H0RSE) #5

[QUOTE=Mad Hatter;332714]It might help sales, but you do realize that they would have to drastically re-balance…everything if they were to implement a TDM mode, right? It would be a pretty big undertaking, to say the least. Brink needs objectives to stay balanced, I believe.
[/QUOTE]

I bet a good portion of the people who want a TDM mode, would gladly put balance on the back burner, if it meant they could get TDM. - they just want to kill people and not have to think a lot.

(V1cK_dB) #6

Maybe…so what. It’s either that or have 10 people to play with in 2 months. I’m a fan of Brink and objective gameplay but more than that I’m a fan of the shooting, movement, no OHK and the very teamwork based class system that SD has always done. I’m sure many others would appreciate those things in an elimination gametype. RTCW had it and it was just as fun as playing stopwatch.

Because of those things even an elimination mode would require WAAYYY more teamwork to win than a game like COD. The medic and soldier teamwork combo would be absolutely necessary to win along with the engineer being an x factor.

(Ero-Sennin) #7

Whatever SD would put a kill count for players or even a K/D, i fail to see how it will bring more players. So many are already playing even if they dont have their nice K/D stat. Will it really bring more… hardly, but still put it,cant hurt. A kill count would be also good enough, on fast respawn game, the death ratio doesnt mean the same thing as in a DM game. Many stated they dont mind dying at all or others use it to their advantage, its not an elimination like CSS ans since its in the game… why not use it. Many had a /kill button command bind in ETwolf or ETQW for the sake of changing class quickly between objs ( quite the norm for competitive teams). With Comm posts, we dont really need it anymore. At least we wont see anymore cheesy players doing /kill while fighting just to prevent you from raking his death. Its so cowardly and so unsportive.

I dont know if adding any sort of DM or TDM would be good to the game, anyway Brink wasnt made with TDM in mind, but the return of the elimination rules set for objective play or even stopwatch elimination would be great. This game mode as many fans and it would only expend a bit more the ruleset we can choose from. We already can play campaign, play objective or stopwatch. Elimination mode either in objective or stopwatch will surely be a success. As for campaign elimination… bah your fighting bots so… they dont react like human users do, could be real weird, but still be playable. An idea I just had, maybe put elimination mode as the ultimate hardcore difficulty you could set the game for multi-campaign mode. Just an idea like that…

(Ero-Sennin) #8

Quote:
Originally Posted by H0RSE View Post
I bet a good portion of the people who want a TDM mode, would gladly put balance on the back burner, if it meant they could get TDM. - they just want to kill people and not have to think a lot.

By Vick_DB
Maybe…so what. It’s either that or have 10 people to play with in 2 months.

HUH!!! what the heck? why is one game mode not in the game (yet hopefully it will in the future) will make lose ALL the Brink community to another game or whatever? 10 people to play with in 2 months… That i believe wont happen soon at all. I dont mind not having elimination, even if it was hot in other titles, it wont make me stop playing Brink, not even close. Splash usually listen to the feed back and works from there. They will patch, they will add stuff, some could even be nerfed. Again, will we start preaching the death of Brink at each update? It will get heavy pretty quick, maybe even some people will start throwing rocks to those birds of misfortune bringing old carcasses to play with. What makes a game live is the fact that some players really like it and plays it because they have fun! Like me and many others. Plus the game is ONE months old, im sure some people planned to buy the game in sales or later in the year ( x-mas and the like), so we will get new players to the community. And people like Greased that makes tutorials either on vids or a website, that too will bring even more players. I dunno for you but MOO on it is that its quite high, ive been playing for 3 weeks now and im still learning new stuff.

Instead of crying about the death of the game, why not keep faith and continue to share on forums or in-game, how we could change or remove or patch stuff so Brink could receive the praise it was meant to get. By continuing to spread those rumors, you are creating a cancer in the community . I know some numbers could corroborate the “dying” case of Brink, BUT its an opinion at best, an observation which cant be fully studied and quantified since its not even close to dead. Its a newborn baby, not even a rugrat yet…Im sure (ill make a safe bet here… :stuck_out_tongue: im a tight player) the game will easily survive until X-mas at least, and that with a steady growth in the number of new users.

oh about the topic… sorry, … well, im sure only the no-brainers are ignorant of the fact that more kills will surely get you closer to victory… I hardly can imagine a Clan specialized in " non-violent pacifist competitive " style of play. Funny idea but still…

“Sarge to the report lieut sir! The enemy is cramping in the doorway. They deployed turrets and mines to form a killing zone. We lost already 52 mens life just to remove the mine field and to bodyblock the turrets so our agent could pass through…” Lieut says " I want every man buffed up on armor and health plus on restoration!!! We will lemming that choke point EVEN IF ITS THE LAST THING WE WILL EVER DO!" the sarge again" According to our Ops, the siege will only last a week and a half for the choke, and around a month to get to the pier, which makes around 7463.03 respawn." The lieut " Lets make them do some corpse pilling! CHAAAAARRRRRGEEE!!!".

ps: just joking here, im not making fun of somebody or else. Its just joking.

(jazevec) #9

Have you taken offense/defense into account ? Defense have it much easier especially with inexperienced teams. You should make separate statistics for winning defense and winning offense. As it is, I suspect most of your “side with more kills wins” scenario is due to them being on defense. In W:ET it even became pathologic, players who knew they were great aimers would favor defense because it would allow them to prolong the match over and over.

Settle the matter. Conduct an experiment.

K/D usefulness experiment
Servings: the whole forum
Prep time: lots
Cook time: much more

Ingredients:
one server
one server admin
15 players of roughly equal skill
1 moron with frustratingly good aim
motivation

Cooking directions:

Prepare players ahead of time.

Fill a server with the 15 players. Divide them into two groups of roughly equal skill, and assign to teams. Add the moron with amazing aim to one of teams. If you don’t know one, it’s best to use a tweaked bot with absolutely maxed stats, particularly accuracy and reaction time. Start the match and observe.

Repeat as needed, making sure to change sides (defense/offense) and maps.

If the side with amazingly aiming moron wins more often, you may have a point. If it doesn’t, you do not. Correlation is not causation.

(tokamak) #10

Now take a look at how often the team wit the most xp wins.

(Ero-Sennin) #11

[QUOTE=jazevec;332768]Have you taken offense/defense into account ? Defense have it much easier especially with inexperienced teams. You should make separate statistics for winning defense and winning offense. As it is, I suspect most of your “side with more kills wins” scenario is due to them being on defense. In W:ET it even became pathologic, players who knew they were great aimers would favor defense because it would allow them to prolong the match over and over.

Settle the matter. Conduct an experiment.

K/D usefulness experiment
Servings: the whole forum
Prep time: lots
Cook time: much more

Ingredients:
one server
one server admin
15 players of roughly equal skill
1 moron with frustratingly good aim
motivation

Cooking directions:

Prepare players ahead of time.

Fill a server with the 15 players. Divide them into two groups of roughly equal skill, and assign to teams. Add the moron with amazing aim to one of teams. If you don’t know one, it’s best to use a tweaked bot with absolutely maxed stats, particularly accuracy and reaction time. Start the match and observe.

Repeat as needed, making sure to change sides (defense/offense) and maps.

If the side with amazingly aiming moron wins more often, you may have a point. If it doesn’t, you do not. Correlation is not causation.[/QUOTE]

Ouch!! Blam in the teeth. Tapir of Wiseassness to you :stroggtapir: good point here. kuddos

(V1cK_dB) #12

[QUOTE=jazevec;332768]Have you taken offense/defense into account ? Defense have it much easier especially with inexperienced teams. You should make separate statistics for winning defense and winning offense. As it is, I suspect most of your “side with more kills wins” scenario is due to them being on defense. In W:ET it even became pathologic, players who knew they were great aimers would favor defense because it would allow them to prolong the match over and over.

Settle the matter. Conduct an experiment.

K/D usefulness experiment
Servings: the whole forum
Prep time: lots
Cook time: much more

Ingredients:
one server
one server admin
15 players of roughly equal skill
1 moron with frustratingly good aim
motivation

Cooking directions:

Prepare players ahead of time.

Fill a server with the 15 players. Divide them into two groups of roughly equal skill, and assign to teams. Add the moron with amazing aim to one of teams. If you don’t know one, it’s best to use a tweaked bot with absolutely maxed stats, particularly accuracy and reaction time. Start the match and observe.

Repeat as needed, making sure to change sides (defense/offense) and maps.

If the side with amazingly aiming moron wins more often, you may have a point. If it doesn’t, you do not. Correlation is not causation.[/QUOTE]

Yes I have taken offense/defense into account. Some points that you made aren’t exactly bulletproof. A random moron with frustratingly good aim huh? So that’s what you think of someone that strives to kill more than they die? i like to think that someone who kills more than they die is usually smart enough to do that while still getting the objectives done. They do things like stop doing the objective so they can help with the fight instead of pressing 1 button and dying because they aren’t good at aiming. They have good situational awareness and make good tactical decisions throughout the game. A little more credit than a moron with good aim don’t you think?

Also your point about good players choosing defense in Wolf ET. While there is some truth to that I also knew of quite a few teams who would do that because they wanted to practice shooting. Almost like a minigame. Not because they couldn’t get the objective themselves but because it was too easy so they used their e-peens on players who didn’t care about k/d ratios and killed them over and over until they quit the game and had them begging for a game one day without k/d ratios. Hell…a game that doesn’t even show deaths. You know…because dying is not a critical component of a game like Brink. Those morons with good aim, tactics, judgement, teamwork (YES TEAMWORK) broke the e-hearts of those players who thought killing wasn’t priority #1. Killing and not dying is what enables objectives to be completed.

Also, just to be clear…I’m not saying that k/d ratios are the all important stat in the game. In most of the scrims that I have played in so far however the winning team usually have the most kills. Offense or defense. With two equally skilled teams (aiming, tactics, etc) to win on defense you have to have more kills than deaths and to win on offense you can’t die that much more than you kill. We all know that against a good team it’s extremely difficult to go into a room by yourself and take out 3 people that are positioned well and run out by yourself and be a hero getting that objective. In a good evenly skilled match the offensive team would most likely have to clear the room (that means killing) and then go as a team to deliver/complete the objective all the while killing (gasp!) the defensive team.

Is it possible to win a game having more deaths than kills as a team on offense. Sure. Maybe by 10 or so kills. Is it possible to win a game with a terrible k/d ratio as a team…not likely.

(V1cK_dB) #13

Literally the last game I played which was on Aquarium and we were on offense competitive gametype.

Resistance

79 kills
13,500 XP

Security

80 kills
21,000 XP

Resistance won.

(Ero-Sennin) #14

Pffffffffffff ok lets mash this up a bit. It will get easier to get the point. Fps games = shooting stuff dead, Brink = FPS game, Winning is not achieved in being dead, shooting stuff requires to be alive and breathing. Big kill count = good firefights. Good firefights = making kills and staying up. Squeeze into this " completing the objective at hand" by using good firefight to leave you room to do stuff safely. There we go! Im so good… [:}

(zenstar) #15

No. He means someone who is completely KDR focused to the point of idiot savant. At no point did he call everyone who likes KDR anything.

That’s kind of the point though: If you want to test for KDR you need the extreme. You don’t want a player who is good at every aspect of the game. You want a moron who happens to have exceptional aim. You need to try seperate the variable to test for just KDR.
I think you’re being over-defensive and missing the point of his test.

You fail to counter the point that defence often have a higher KDR because the game favours defending and that that could be skewing your results. This statement is redundant fluff. Your argument is stronger without it.

[QUOTE=V1cK_dB;332779]
Also, just to be clear…I’m not saying that k/d ratios are the all important stat in the game. In most of the scrims that I have played in so far however the winning team usually have the most kills. Offense or defense. With two equally skilled teams (aiming, tactics, etc) to win on defense you have to have more kills than deaths and to win on offense you can’t die that much more than you kill. We all know that against a good team it’s extremely difficult to go into a room by yourself and take out 3 people that are positioned well and run out by yourself and be a hero getting that objective. In a good evenly skilled match the offensive team would most likely have to clear the room (that means killing) and then go as a team to deliver/complete the objective all the while killing (gasp!) the defensive team.
Is it possible to win a game having more deaths than kills as a team on offense. Sure. Maybe by 10 or so kills. Is it possible to win a game with a terrible k/d ratio as a team…not likely.[/QUOTE]
So basically what you are saying is that good players will generally have a higher KDR?
Well… yes… that’s fairly obvious. I’ll completely agree with you there. Also agree that generally the team with the most kills will win. But why is this so important?

Basically: teamwork and co-ordination are more important than focusing on KDR. The more you puff up KDR the more people are going to pay attention to it. If you play well with your team your KDR will grow naturally. If you play for KDR you’re probably letting your team down.

I’m not disagreeing with your points really. I just think that way too many people have been trying to make KDR seem super important. Conversely too many people have been saying KDR is completely worthless.

It is required but will come naturally with teamwork. Focussing on it is probably detrimental.

(howie) #16

It’s nice to think that the k/d ratio doesn’t matter and that the XP scoreboard is a good indication of who the most useful team players are. This isn’t the case, but a noble sentiment nonetheless.

As with any fps, Brink is all about killing and not dying. Sure, team play is important, i’m not trying to downplay that at all, but being able to kill the other team is key. In most cases a rambo loner that can consitantly kill 3 people for every death will be more use to a team than a medic who simply buffs and sits comfortably at the top of the scoreboard (i’m not advocating this as a good way to play btw). This was true of RTCW and ET and it’s also true of Brink.

(Je T´aime) #17

[QUOTE=howie;332813]It’s nice to think that the k/d ratio doesn’t matter and that the XP scoreboard is a good indication of who the most useful team players are. This isn’t the case, but a noble sentiment nonetheless.

As with any fps, Brink is all about killing and not dying. Sure, team play is important, i’m not trying to downplay that at all, but being able to kill the other team is key. In most cases a rambo loner that can consitantly kill 3 people for every death will be more use to a team than a medic who simply buffs and sits comfortably at the top of the scoreboard (i’m not advocating this as a good way to play btw). This was true of RTCW and ET and it’s also true of Brink.[/QUOTE]

He speaks the truth : ) I completly agree with this.

(Kurushi) #18

So the team has more kills, that kinda make sense, but it doesn’t really explain why individuals have K:D

(xXHugDangerXx) #19

Defence will always have more kills unless the attacking team far outclasses them in skill.
K/D hunters prefer to play defence for this reason.

No need for K/D

K/D encourages camping
K/D does not get objectives done

If anything more focus needs to be on people who break a good defence or shut down a good push because at least then that is killing that is relevant to the objectives, in no way should people be rewarded for spawn camping or farming kills with cheap mechanics away from the actual map focus.

(tokamak) #20

[QUOTE=V1cK_dB;332785]Literally the last game I played which was on Aquarium and we were on offense competitive gametype.

Resistance

79 kills
13,500 XP

Security

80 kills
21,000 XP

Resistance won.[/QUOTE]

Wow, that’s odd.