27 replies to this topic

[Bigfoot]

Personally, I think the player that does the most damage per kill deserves credit for the kill.  Assists and death blows awarded and noted as well.  I figure since the game already allocates proportional XP for each player involved in a kill, the fundamental programming is already in place to make this minor adjustment.  Give credit where credit is due.  The player who did the heavy lifting on a kill should receive the lion's share of the credit.

[D20Face]

Kills should stay on last hit.

Sometimes killstealing is used to get double kills easily. In an even TDM match the side with more double kills wins. It actually only takes like, 4 double kills to make up for the loss of a kill. Triple kills obviously help more, but they're harder to plan for properly.

[Analysis]

Quote

The player who did the heavy lifting on a kill should receive the lion's share of the credit

They already due get more credit based on damage dealt to the mech.

Quote

Personally, I think the player that does the most damage per kill deserves credit for the kill

The problem with this idea is what happens whey they damage a mech 51% or more, but clearly lose to the opponent. The winning mech goes off to heal in a corner, but is discovered and finished off by a teamate. Why should a person that clearly lost(died) get credit for a kill because they did slightly more damage_ The other situation that can occur is suppose you damage 51% or more and your opponent flees and you are unable to catch them. If a teamate doesn't spot them you certianly don't get a kill, or an assist, or even experience. A important ability in any shooter is being able to finish. If you can't finish the best a player deserves is an assist.

[Conquistador]

I concur with above. Kills should stay credited to last hit. There are cases where one of our teammates acts the role of a finisher and chases down a player with almost no health on the run. This takes the finisher deep behind enemy lines. That player should be rewarded with the kill, because it is a high risk situation and can be extremely difficult to pull off.

Also, this mechanic is usually what the assists counter is for. The person with the most assists typically (but not always) does the most damage.

Proposed solution: add in damage ranking just like most points and most assists to track player damage dealt. Separate from kill count and assists. Damage counter would track player-dealt damage over lifetime of the match.

Edited by Conquistador, December 07 2012 - 09:12 AM.

[Bigfoot]

Analysis, on December 07 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Quote

The player who did the heavy lifting on a kill should receive the lion's share of the credit

They already due get more credit based on damage dealt to the mech.

Quote

Personally, I think the player that does the most damage per kill deserves credit for the kill

The problem with this idea is what happens whey they damage a mech 51% or more, but clearly lose to the opponent. The winning mech goes off to heal in a corner, but is discovered and finished off by a teamate. Why should a person that clearly lost(died) get credit for a kill because they did slightly more damage_ The other situation that can occur is suppose you damage 51% or more and your opponent flees and you are unable to catch them. If a teamate doesn't spot them you certianly don't get a kill, or an assist, or even experience. A important ability in any shooter is being able to finish. If you can't finish the best a player deserves is an assist.

On your first quote, I hear what you're saying.  I probably didn't articulate it very well.  By "credit", I mean get credit for the kill.  Not XP credit.  I realize we do get XP for assists.

On your second, I have no problem at all with the first scenario you proposed.  If you damaged a mech 51% and he retreats while your teammate follows and finishes him, I fully endorse you getting credit for the kill.  I guess I just see it from a different angle.  If you have the stones to face off with the enemy in the first place, you created the opportunity for your teammate.  Not the other way around.  It's just a matter of opinion.  I don't think there is a right or wrong on this.  I have always given more praise to the initiator of combat rather than the guy who conveniently sweeps in to steal the thunder.

I do somewhat understand your position on the value of finishing your opponent.  You gotta seal the deal.  But finishing an opponent isn't just about the kill shot.  It's multi-faceted.  Why should all the work that goes into getting an opponent's HP whittled down be so undermined_  To me, he has more to lose.  It's far easier to sweep in on a wounded enemy than to face off with him when he's at full health.  It's like disregarding the men who built the foundation of a home and highlighting the name of the guy who nailed the last shingle in the roof.  (Ok, not quite like that...but you get the picture).  

Incidentally, I played a game once that did exactly what I suggested.  Oddly, it was another mech game called Cyberstrike 2.  It gave credit to the kill, all the assists, and the death blow.  2

[Bigfoot]

Conquistador, on December 07 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

I concur with above. Kills should stay credited to last hit. There are cases where one of our teammates acts the role of a finisher and chases down a player with almost no health on the run. This takes the finisher deep behind enemy lines. That player should be rewarded with the kill, because it is a high risk situation and can be extremely difficult to pull off.

Also, this mechanic is usually what the assists counter is for. The person with the most assists typically (but not always) does the most damage.

Proposed solution: add in damage ranking just like most points and most assists to track player damage dealt. Separate from kill count and assists. Damage counter would track player-dealt damage over lifetime of the match.

I'd be down with a damage ranking, which is similar to how a lot of other games handle it.  In fact, some games praise the damage meters more than kill meters.

[z121231211]

I agree with keeping it at last kill too. A dead mech is so much more valuable than a heavily damaged mech that the person who makes the finishing blow should be rewarded. You still get a majority of the exp which is how the scoreboard is sorted anyway.

[DM30]

Bigfoot, on December 07 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

I'd be down with a damage ranking, which is similar to how a lot of other games handle it.  In fact, some games praise the damage meters more than kill meters.

Some games, like Hawken for example_ Because right now rankings are determined by XP, which is proportional to how much damage you dealt. Essentially the XP meter is a damage meter, with the exception of points gained for objectives.

[Conquistador]

DM30, on December 07 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Bigfoot, on December 07 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

I'd be down with a damage ranking, which is similar to how a lot of other games handle it.  In fact, some games praise the damage meters more than kill meters.

Some games, like Hawken for example_ Because right now rankings are determined by XP, which is proportional to how much damage you dealt. Essentially the XP meter is a damage meter, with the exception of points gained for objectives.

Xp is fallacious because it includes things like energy delivery and saviour kills or avenger kills, which have nothing to do with damage dealt.

I can play a match of siege as a fatty C class and do nothing but ferry energy and still receive xp. All this without firing a single shot. Same applies to capping points on missile.

[QuanZen]

A Damage Dealer Award would be great. But to go along with that appropriate Class Mechs, and Skill Trees would also be very welcomed. Right now the game really doesn't have specific roles for any given class.

[DM30]

Conquistador, on December 07 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Xp is fallacious because it includes things like energy delivery and saviour kills or avenger kills, which have nothing to do with damage dealt.

I can play a match of siege as a fatty C class and do nothing but ferry energy and still receive xp. All this without firing a single shot. Same applies to capping points on missile.

Hence the last part of my post:

DM30, on December 07 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

...with the exception of points gained for objectives.

Granted, I was never able to find any servers for Siege or MA with more than a single person in them during CBE3, so my comment was mostly from the perspective of TDM. For people who play mostly objective-based modes, your point does apply much more than mine.

[virella]

though with the way seige went in CBE3 there was rarely more than 10-15 kills on a side with 3 to 4 times that in assists getting kills and assists for around 20-30 xp do to the ammount of damage from a team all landing at the same time. there rarely is an initiator on seige, so i could stay the same as it currently is, MA on the other hand seems to revolve into one team holding all three or 2 of the three points rushing arround the other team to get the one they got while having one hold against the enemy team as the try to cap one point, so there are not allot of assists in ma from what ive seen maybe 1 per 2-3 kills. the only affect this would really have would be on TDM, and could potentially fuzzy bunny up deathmatch if it was just applied uniformly without blocking it off from dm.

[Elix]

I wasn't convinced that this is a good change the last three times this suggestion was brought up, and nothing new is in this thread.

Why is kill count so important_ You are not your K/D ratio.

[AsianJoyKiller]

This is a simple matter. "Kill" is a verb meaning, "to cause the death of."
You can have done 99.99% of the damage, but if you didn't fire that last shot and take the target down, you did not kill them and should not be awarded a kill.

[marshalade]

Elix, on December 07 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Why is kill count so important_ You are not your K/D ratio.

Thank you.

I don't agree with OP at all. You're awarded XP based on damage. If you didn't deal the killing blow, you didn't get the kill. Simple.

Can I also reiterate how badly Deathmatch would be broken if kills were based on damage dealt_

[Bigfoot]

AsianJoyKiller, on December 07 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

This is a simple matter. "Kill" is a verb meaning, "to cause the death of."
You can have done 99.99% of the damage, but if you didn't fire that last shot and take the target down, you did not kill them and should not be awarded a kill.

And that, quite simply, has got to be one of the least insightful posts I've seen on the matter.   If you did 99% of the damage, you absolutely had a hand in the death.  Just as the kill shot did.  Both players participated in it.  You might as well say the guy who rolled the dough, added the topings and shoved the pizza into the oven had nothing to do with making the pie-- but the guy who boxed it up had everything to do with it.

Edited by Bigfoot, December 07 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[Necro]

A kill is a kill but it would be nice to differentiate between kill assists essentially and actual kills.

You could kill 200 people but also only do 200 damage.

I would say anything below like 10-5% damage and you get the kill would essentially be you assisting a kill.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Bigfoot, on December 07 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on December 07 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

This is a simple matter. "Kill" is a verb meaning, "to cause the death of."
You can have done 99.99% of the damage, but if you didn't fire that last shot and take the target down, you did not kill them and should not be awarded a kill.

And that, quite simply, has got to be one of the least insightful posts I've seen on the matter.   If you did 99% of the damage, you absolutely had a hand in the death.  Just as the kill shot did.  Both players participated in it.  You might as well say the guy who rolled the dough, added the topings and shoved the pizza into the oven had nothing to do with making the pie-- but the guy who boxed it up had everything to do with it.

If you, or someone else does not kill them, your target is free to heal and return to combat as if nothing happened. If you did not bring them down, you have not caused their death. Either you killed them or you didn't. That is binary.

Whether or not you assisted in their downfall is another matter.

[Bigfoot]

marshalade, on December 07 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Elix, on December 07 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Why is kill count so important_ You are not your K/D ratio.

Thank you.

I don't agree with OP at all. You're awarded XP based on damage. If you didn't deal the killing blow, you didn't get the kill. Simple.

Can I also reiterate how badly Deathmatch would be broken if kills were based on damage dealt_

Please do.  Tell me how "broken" it would be.

Frankly, I think people just haven't seen shooters done any other way.  This is the only way most have seen it done, so it must be the only way it can be done.  Well....  not really.  I've seen it done the other way, and it works just fine.  It fostered much more of a team approach.

There is no "right" or "wrong" way.  Just different.  I've seen both.  Both work.  Just depends on what kind of atmosphere the developers are trying to cultivate.

[Bigfoot]

AsianJoyKiller, on December 07 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Bigfoot, on December 07 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on December 07 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

This is a simple matter. "Kill" is a verb meaning, "to cause the death of."
You can have done 99.99% of the damage, but if you didn't fire that last shot and take the target down, you did not kill them and should not be awarded a kill.

And that, quite simply, has got to be one of the least insightful posts I've seen on the matter.   If you did 99% of the damage, you absolutely had a hand in the death.  Just as the kill shot did.  Both players participated in it.  You might as well say the guy who rolled the dough, added the topings and shoved the pizza into the oven had nothing to do with making the pie-- but the guy who boxed it up had everything to do with it.

If you, or someone else does not kill them, your target is free to heal and return to combat as if nothing happened. If you did not bring them down, you have not caused their death. Either you killed them or you didn't. That is binary.

Whether or not you assisted in their downfall is another matter.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I follow exactly what you're saying.  I mean, if the mech didn't die, then there is no argument over the kill...right_  So the point is moot.

The more I'm reading these the more I think we're debating semantics more than anything.  The definition of "kill" I guess is what this all boils down to.

I probably should have better clarified why I would like to see this change.  Plainly stated, I think some folks like to see their name in lights for top kill status.  The issue I have is where I feel the goal of the team winning takes a backseat to kills (for some players).  Logic would seem to dictate that piling up kills and fullfilling your solo glory would correlate to wins, but many of us know that isn't so.  

There are different ways to incentivize people.  We're all motivated by different things.  Some people like cash, some like recognition, etc.  In this case, I'm addressing the recognition aspect.  By disincentivizing people from sweeping in for last second kills, I think they'll put their team in harm's way far less frequently.

All too often, I've seen players charge in needlessly to attempt to steal a kill while abandoning their position at a missle turret or even abandoning a teammate who's fending off 2 mechs.  Simply put, zooming in for kill glory is often done at the expense of the team.