Deathmatch - make sense?

[Cenotaph]

maybe the 69/5 guy is just camping, exploiting a good hiding spot.

Anyway, deathmatch was always about the frags, and the name death is still apropriate since the goal is to KILL.

if not getting killed is ur thing i believe there was this thing in UT/UT2 called "Last Man Standing", im sure someone will mod it to UT3 soon

[bean]

Or he was being lame and/or spawn-raping newbies
The latter can easily double your frag-rate with few deaths, without requiring much skill IMO.

If the object of FFA is to get the most frags, it's hard to justify that a player with lower frags is better. I mean, clearly, as a tactic, it can be worth sacrificing some lives to get more frags. (Though I know which one I'd back in a 1v1 or want in my TDM team.)

[edit]beaten to it. LMS would be a good addition![/edit]

[DaUff]

It's still nice to SEE deaths on the scoreboard, even though they technically mean nothing.
It's the only thing that seperates a good player and a great player in DM.
The great player will have 69 frags, 5 deaths. The good player will have 70 frags, 40 deaths.
Obviously 70 frags wins, but everyone knows the 69 frag player owned that map.

Speeks the truth. - period -

Da

[Pitch~Black]

It's still nice to SEE deaths on the scoreboard, even though they technically mean nothing.
It's the only thing that seperates a good player and a great player in DM.
The great player will have 69 frags, 5 deaths. The good player will have 70 frags, 40 deaths.
Obviously 70 frags wins, but everyone knows the 69 frag player owned that map.

Not the truth. It has been my experience that lopsided scores like that meant somebody was camping and they guy (or girl) with 70 frags and more deaths was playing run and gun the way death-match was meant to be played.

[[Da]Stoneco|d]

Deaths only matter in 1v1s and TDM. In normal DM, deaths don't matter at all. Just kill and highest score wins. In TDM, you need teamwork and minimize the deaths as low as you can. You won't get the same amount of kills but when adding up the scores of each individual you will see a big number.

[Minimaul]

Your deaths matter in 1 on 1 deathmatch.

And TDM.

Deaths are very important to me when I'm playing TDM/DM/1v1. On general DM pubs if I'm playing and say the limit is 25, someone else wins with 25 kills but 20 deaths. I may be in second or third place with 22 kills and 4 deaths. I may not have won the match but I did do better. I consider that a 'win for me' more than I do getting the highest amount of frags.

In TDM and 1v1, if you don't die, the other team can not win. So the game changes from killing to surviving and killing.

[EffeKt]

LOL. picture a mod where whoever wins is the one who dies the most? It would be the most civil form of gameplay in fps. Jack Thompson would probably recommend it.

[DaUff]

And TDM.

Deaths are very important to me when I'm playing TDM/DM/1v1. On general DM pubs if I'm playing and say the limit is 25, someone else wins with 25 kills but 20 deaths. I may be in second or third place with 22 kills and 4 deaths. I may not have won the match but I did do better. I consider that a 'win for me' more than I do getting the highest amount of frags.

In TDM and 1v1, if you don't die, the other team can not win. So the game changes from killing to surviving and killing.

exactly! IMHO, deathmatch could better represent the better player in the end score. Look, it's just an opinion... maybe coming from the gaming tradition that has always been limited lives... or maybe from a "closer to realistic" perspective?? I dunno ... pacman gets 3 lives, space invaders etc.. all limited lives. We have only one life (in our current form anyway). Having deaths matter would just make it mo better IMO. But hey, I'm not here to push the deathmatch tradition... or to make Unreal, more real.. ...Just an observation.

Donovan

[tehlostone]

Things like UTComp where great in that they recorded net kills/deaths. So even if you get the most kills but have a -net, you are a failure.

LOL. picture a mod where whoever wins is the one who dies the most? It would be the most civil form of gameplay in fps. Jack Thompson would probably recommend it.

No, to much suicide.

[EffeKt]

Things like UTComp where great in that they recorded net kills/deaths. So even if you get the most kills but have a -net, you are a failure.



No, to much suicide.

Touche sir, touche.

[Lillien]

I think its like any sport. The aim is to win the match and in the end thats the most important thing.

Closely behind that win, though, is HOW you win the match. In football/soccer, were you forced back all game but scored a last minute header to win, or did you send 5 men into every attack and destroy your opponent 10-0?

Maybe you gave out what you received and ended on 25-25, or maybe you destroyed your opponents with a Godlike and 25-0.

The first step is always to start winning the maps, then after that its all about impressing over your opponents by getting high kills and low deaths.

Thats essentially why the 69-5 is better than the 70-40. Its obvious who the better player is.

So the win is the most important and whilst low deaths don't officially mean anything in plain DM, it does actually show details about the player's standard of play.

[bean]

Thats essentially why the 69-5 is better than the 70-40. Its obvious who the better player is.

You mean the one who won, or the one who didn't win?

The point of the gametype is to get the most frags. Trying to impose ideals from other game modes (TDM and 1v1) is a bit daft.
Going by least deaths, or efficiency, or whatever, is like saying the better CTF team is the one that died least, not the one with the most caps.
Sure you can respect the better efficiency, and assuming they'd use similar tactics, they'd probably make a much better TDM player - but they're not playing TDM...

[Xyx]

69-5 is better than the 70-40.

In TDM, yes, but not in DM.