Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Call of Duty - personal gripe

Vidder

Vidder

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 10, 2008
165
0
New Jersey
I don’t play online games all that much because i think most of them suck nowadays, but one game series I DO play online is Call of Duty. Although I find it a bit fun, there is something that has been bothering me about it. Its in the post-game-lobby where they have the list of “top scorers” of the previous game. These results are solely based on how many kills each player got in the last game.
Example:
1 - Player A - 2200 = (22 kills)
2 - Player B – 1100 = (11 kills)
3 - Player C – 1050 = (10.5 kills)
4 - Player D – 1050 = (10.5 kills)
5 - Player E – 1000 = (10 kills)
6 - Player F – 800 = (8 kills)
7 - Player G – 650 = (6.5 kills)
8 - Player H - 250 = (2.5 kills)

Now what’s failed to be mentioned in the post-game-lobby chart? The amount of times each player died!!!!

Example: (added to the chart are the death counts of each player and their (kill/death ratio)
1 - Player A – 2200 - 22 kills - 25 deaths = 0.88 kill/death ratio
2 - Player B – 1100 - 22 kills - 8 deaths = 1.375 kill/death ratio
3 - Player C – 1050 - 22 kills - 12 deaths = 0.875 kill/death ratio
4 - Player D – 1050 - 10.5 kills - 5 deaths = 2.1 kill/death ratio
5 - Player E – 1000 - 22 kills - 5 deaths = 2.0 kill/death ratio
6 - Player F – 800 - 8 kills - 1 death = 8.0 kill/death ratio
7 - Player G – 650 - 6.5 kills -10 deaths = 0.65 kill/death ratio
8 - Player H – 250 - 2.5 kills - 2 death = 1.25 kill/death ratio



This brings up my point. If the deaths were included, and each player was then ranked based on kill/death ratio we’d have a whole new game. If this was the case then the following list would now be the new ranking list.

1 - Player F – 800 - 8 kills - 1 death = 8.0 kill/death ratio
2 - Player D – 1050 - 10.5 kills - 5 deaths = 2.1 kill/death ratio
3 - Player E – 1000 - 10 kills - 5 deaths = 2.0 kill/death ratio
4 - Player B – 1100 - 11 kills - 8 deaths = 1.375 kill/death ratio
5 - Player H – 250 - 2.5 kills - 2 death = 1.25 kill/death ratio
6 - Player A – 2200 - 22 kills - 25 deaths = 0 .88 kill/death ratio
7 - Player C – 1050 - 10.5 kills - 12 deaths = 0.875 kill/death ratio
8 - Player G – 650 - 6.5 kills -10 deaths = 0.65 kill/death ratio

Now this is a much better way to view the more effective players of the game. That’s not an opinion. After all it’s a team game, and if you die just as many times as you get a kill then you’re basically doing nothing for your teams score. Now look at the leading “killer” of that match who had 22 kills but died 25 times. You’ll see that he is the 6th most effective player of the game and, in fact, HURT his teams overall score because he gave the opposing team more points than he acquired for his team.


(I've been out of work for a while because i had knee surgery...so yes...i was bored.)
 
The only online game I played was COD 6 - MW 2, and while the ranking was sorted after points (kills), the deaths were also displayed, but not considered in the final score.
 
Yeah, but then you get those guys that sit in the corner and just pop you as you run by, getting an 8:1 ratio.

I have thought about this because sometimes the top player gets more deaths than kills, but it doesn't really matter. You level up so fast often enough. And even faster if you are playing Search and Destroy (my favorite).
 
Xavier said:
I have thought about this because sometimes the top player gets more deaths than kills, but it doesn't really matter. You level up so fast often enough. And even faster if you are playing Search and Destroy (my favorite).
Click to expand...

I actually never considered the whole idea of getting kills to level up quicker. Thats a good point. However, I personally never felt the urge to do it so quickly. I feel like leveling up is fast enough even if you don't try to rush it.

The ****** part about that is that its taking away from the whole idea of the "team game"...and if in a team game if someone told me they were just trying to get kills to level up, then i'd tell them to go play last man standing.

I just wish there was more of a team effort in the game and less personal goals to achieve. Would make for a more realistic experience. IMO. And for some strange reason, i have a funny feeling that changing the after game "scoreboard" would make people more aware of how stupid running and gunning is. I dunno. It could make fore an interesting experiment.


Xavier said:
Yeah, but then you get those guys that sit in the corner and just pop you as you run by, getting an 8:1 ratio.
Click to expand...

- That's true, but you have those guys anyway. Also, if you were say working as a team to clear corners...that guy would only get one kill before his teammates discover where he is and kill him. The campers would be less effective if the team actually knew how to work together. Thats why "camping" in real war wouldn't be very good. The guy would last for one kill...
 
spinnerlys said:
The only online game I played was COD 6 - MW 2, and while the ranking was sorted after points (kills), the deaths were also displayed, but not considered in the final score.
Click to expand...

You can actually view the amount of deaths in Modern Warfare 2, but you gotta go out of your way a bit to view it. You need to like hit "Y", or something, which'll bring up your stats on the match, you can then scroll right to view other stats such as everyone's kills/deaths and their person accolades for the round. Its actually pretty neat.
 
Vidder said:
I actually never considered the whole idea of getting kills to level up quicker. Thats a good point. However, I personally never felt the urge to do it so quickly. I feel like leveling up is fast enough even if you don't try to rush it.

The ****** part about that is that its taking away from the whole idea of the "team game"...and if in a team game if someone told me they were just trying to get kills to level up, then i'd tell them to go play last man standing.

I just wish there was more of a team effort in the game and less personal goals to achieve. Would make for a more realistic experience. IMO. And for some strange reason, i have a funny feeling that changing the after game "scoreboard" would make people more aware of how stupid running and gunning is. I dunno. It could make fore an interesting experiment.




- That's true, but you have those guys anyway. Also, if you were say working as a team to clear corners...that guy would only get one kill before his teammates discover where he is and kill him. The campers would be less effective if the team actually knew how to work together. Thats why "camping" in real war wouldn't be very good. The guy would last for one kill...
Click to expand...

This is why I love Search and Destroy. There is no 'running and gunning' as you say, and you are focused on completing the objective. I like objective games more than Team Deathmatch.
 
Have you tried Bad Company 2? That game rewards players more for working as a team, spotting enemies for squadmates and completing objectives than it does for killing enemies.
 
A good kill/death ratio is what I always aim for.

I like what you are proposing but i don't really the problem is that big. Who cares where you are ranked in the lobby?

Also if you really wanted to show what someone was like at a team game you would need it to show assists and maybe some other actions which give the whole team an advantage (such as UV) next to someones name.
 
All anyone ever needs is Team Fortress 2 (PC/Mac version).
Deaths aren't really important in games that have respawning though. As a pyro I get more kills (and deaths) than a Heavy defending a point and therefore a higher score because I'm keeping people as far back from the CP as I can. Spies get way more deaths than kills (usually) but their skill lies in destroying buildings. Having a k/d ratio in these kind of games wouldn't be a good idea.

Generally I try to get as many kills/points as I can with as few deaths as I can.
 
In the game Call of Duty MW2 and COD4 MW. The ranking in the game-lobby-chart goes by score not the kill/death ratio. So someone can have 50 kills and 100 deaths but the person underneath them has 30 and 0 deaths. The person with the 50 kills and 100 deaths is in first place because for every kill you get an amount of points.

PSN: slouchygull

We should party up sometime.
 
The lobby is ranked by points not kills I thought.

For example, the person at the top may not have got the most kills, but if they captured lots of flags in Domination, they would have a high score, so would be near the top. In that case, the KD ratio isn't important.

It's all about how many points you contribute to your team, be it through kills, or gaining points in other ways.
 
appleguy1236 said:
In the game Call of Duty MW2 and COD4 MW. The ranking in the game-lobby-chart goes by score not the kill/death ratio. So someone can have 50 kills and 100 deaths but the person underneath them has 30 and 0 deaths. The person with the 50 kills and 100 deaths is in first place because for every kill you get an amount of points.
Click to expand...

DId you even read the initial post?



lukenn said:
The lobby is ranked by points not kills I thought.
Click to expand...

Yeah it goes by points. But i was mainly concerned with team death match...not so much capture the flag.



SpookTheHamster said:
Have you tried Bad Company 2? That game rewards players more for working as a team, spotting enemies for squadmates and completing objectives than it does for killing enemies.
Click to expand...

I haven't gotten it yet. But i plan on getting around to it.



hazza.jockel said:
A good kill/death ratio is what I always aim for.

I like what you are proposing but i don't really the problem is that big. Who cares where you are ranked in the lobby?

Also if you really wanted to show what someone was like at a team game you would need it to show assists and maybe some other actions which give the whole team an advantage (such as UV) next to someones name.
Click to expand...

- I bet you'd be surprised about how many people actually DO care about that board.
- Showing the kill streak awards would be really cool!
 
theITGuy said:
can i ask why? It's a fantastic game...it will be hard to go back to the Halo universe...

-J.-
Click to expand...

After playing TF2 and L4D1 and 2 on PC (soon Mac) it's hard to go back to Halo, COD, GoW or anything like that ;).
 
Ughhhhh

I totally agree, about the K/D ratio. However, I believe they did it to combat camping and squatting. Its bad enough already, I will get killed by the same guy a few times in the game, and killcam (When im not in Hardcore TD) shows that he HAS NOT MOVED!!!

That is why I like playing Hardcore TD though, it is alot more intense/thrilling to play.

My own personal gripes:
-You cannot play split screen online.
-You cannot system link for deathmatches, ie: 2 on one tv and 2 on the other, to play a LAN 2v2 game.

Those are the ONLY times I play Halo anymore.

gamertag= alpinechris

The GF just went on a vacation, so I'll have some free time :D lets play!
 
MattSepeta said:
I totally agree, about the K/D ratio. However, I believe they did it to combat camping and squatting. Its bad enough already, I will get killed by the same guy a few times in the game, and killcam (When im not in Hardcore TD) shows that he HAS NOT MOVED!!!
Click to expand...


I never understood the complaint about someone "camping". They are very easy to control. If you can't flank them in any way (which is nearly impossible - because almost all effective camping areas have more then one way to attack) then just leave that person alone...then they become useless.

I find it funny when I am personally holding down a roof or a building and people keep attacking me from the same corner without going around and attacking from somewhere else. I'm not gonna move until the attacks stop coming around that corner. If you die from the same guy more then twice you should stop playing the game especially because they show you where the guy is shooting you from. Its almost crazy that people are able to camp.

The problem is that most people that play the game run around like idiots...so why would you not just let them run into your line of sight? Like those guys that run around with dual shotguns...its target practice.

The fact is that camping is part of the game. Its a strategy. You'll always have people that do it and they are not invincible. You just have to use your brain a bit while attacking them. Charging around corners doesn't really work all that well.
 
camping

I understand that. My main complaint is just a few of the well known "locations", like the corner behind the boxes in sub base. There will ALWAYS be some idiot hiding in the dark corner, or people that hide up on top of piles of boxes in corners of rooms.

I also love the guys that run around with dual shotguns. They are fun to shoot, even more fun to knife :)
 
yeah. I don't see the point in waiting in a room and staring at the entrance to it...that's just stupid. But i don't have a problem with someone being in a room and shooting out a window or off of a roof.

If they can hold down that room/roof for the entire game, then good for them.
 
Vidder said:
After all it’s a team game, and if you die just as many times as you get a kill then you’re basically doing nothing for your teams score. Now look at the leading “killer” of that match who had 22 kills but died 25 times. You’ll see that he is the 6th most effective player of the game and, in fact, HURT his teams overall score because he gave the opposing team more points than he acquired for his team.
Click to expand...

Someone should mention this to the jihadists.

My office mate likes the new Battlefield.. apparently camping is hard to do when everything is destroy-able.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back