Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Cerebral Wolf Jr
Immobile Infantry
760
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 09:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'd call K/D ratio fans more of a tragic figure. They comes from a different school of internet warfare, if you will. They are the best of what "MAG" has to offer, but it just doesn't work in the reality of this game. Take for example Hannibal of Carthage, by far considered the best Hellenistic general of his time. Problem is Hellenistic warfare was hilariously unprepared for the Roman school of war. A Hellenistic general was expected maneuver and delay battle until he held an undeniable advantage. Battle would commence and he would score a victory by inflicting some casualties and getting the other army to route. In Hellenistic warfare retreat and surrender were often allowed and expected, a golden avenue was given to let the other force leave. Terms of peace shortly followed thereafter. This should sound rather familiar as our K/D ration fans believe that kill/death ratios decide the day, they expect one victory after much maneuvering to make their enemy take the golden avenue of retreat, and come terms.
Roman warfare pretty much dictated that it wasn't over till you were no longer a threat. That meant total annihilation or subjugation. Carthage itself was subdued a number of times each time attempting the throw off Roman control. Finally the Romans got pissed enough they said **** it and just burnt all of Carthage to the ground and replaced it with a Roman settlement.
Just giving you all a heads up that you're using a very old style of warfare and it's since been improved on a lot by both ancient military tactics and modern day stuff too. You've all got a lot to learn.
Oh, Edit: That reminds me the Romans had trouble with their fleet doctrine too. So they decided to turn naval battles into glorified infantry engagements. The Romans stuck a Corvus on their boat, basically it was small bridging device with two spikes on it. Once it crashed through the deck of the other ship the spikes would hold them in place. With the other ship tackled shall we say, the Romans then sent troops over onto the other ship and promptly slew sailor Carthage who couldn't withstand the the sudden numbers flooding onto their deck.
I should also mention that Carthage had a terrible time rallying an army from distant lands and cultures, while the Romans had the strength of their homogeneous cultures to pull from.
TL;DR? Culture and scorched earth tactics work much better than K/D ratios. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 11:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cerebral Wolf Jr wrote: I should also mention that Carthage had a terrible time rallying an army from distant lands and cultures, while the Romans had the strength of their homogeneous cultures to pull from.
So what you are saying is that, in effect, the Romans had better teamwork than Carthage within the context? Yeah I can see how that's trump a straight up KDR |
Whispercrow
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 11:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Check your history. Vietnam was "won" only after the opposing side violated the cease-fire that was supposed to end it on neutral terms.
In response to the original post: KDR isn't as important as team contribution, only the self-absorbed elite *****-shakers of other games want to think it's the most important thing in the game. It IS important, but not the most important thing. |
Cerebral Wolf Jr
Immobile Infantry
760
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 12:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Whispercrow wrote: Check your history. Vietnam was "won" only after the opposing side violated the cease-fire that was supposed to end it on neutral terms.
In response to the original post: KDR isn't as important as team contribution, only the self-absorbed elite *****-shakers of other games want to think it's the most important thing in the game. It IS important, but not the most important thing.
The exact point i'm trying to relay. |
Fierces Dave
KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 12:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Whispercrow wrote: Check your history. Vietnam was "won" only after the opposing side violated the cease-fire that was supposed to end it on neutral terms.
In response to the original post: KDR isn't as important as team contribution, only the self-absorbed elite *****-shakers of other games want to think it's the most important thing in the game. It IS important, but not the most important thing.
^this |
Hawk of Battle
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
I would like to bring to everyones attention, the Winter War. Just look at Finlands KDR! |
fenrir storm
Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic
314
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
It's all subject to variables , Take russia in afganistan as an example, They had the weapons the troops and the technology, but they didn't have the backing of the population they were fighting for.
They needed the support of the population but didn't get it there fore a tribal culture put aside there differences and joined together and won. As soon as the russians left they went about fighting each other again.
You need the people to support you other wise your fighting an entire nation and that is a war you cant win no matter what tactics you employ. |
howard sanchez
Conspiratus Immortalis
448
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
Didn't Hannibel take a huge army across theMed, through Spain, over the alps( with elephants) and down into Italy to surprise Rome and kick some ass?
I may have that wrong, it's been a long time and I don't remember clearly |
Tectonious Falcon
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
howard sanchez wrote:Didn't Hannibel take a huge army across theMed, through Spain, over the alps( with elephants) and down into Italy to surprise Rome and kick some ass?
I may have that wrong, it's been a long time and I don't remember clearly
Kick ass he did, however that ass did not like being kicked and proceeded to grab hannibals ass and handed it to him
Long story short: Hannibal eventually had his ass handed to him
(if I'm remembering correctly) |
HK-40
120
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:20:00 -
[10] - Quote
Tectonious Falcon wrote:howard sanchez wrote:Didn't Hannibel take a huge army across theMed, through Spain, over the alps( with elephants) and down into Italy to surprise Rome and kick some ass?
I may have that wrong, it's been a long time and I don't remember clearly Kick ass he did, however that ass did not like being kicked and proceeded to grab hannibals ass and handed it to him Long story short: Hannibal eventually had his ass handed to him (if I'm remembering correctly)
The Carthaginian Senate refused to support the war effort in Italy, being far more interested in playing politics, and Hannibals family at the time were on the outer.
Also, for all his military genius, Hannibal was not as tactically brilliant. He won 'every' battle in Italy however did not capitalise by the capture/destruction of any major Itialic cities. Eventually he was called back to defend Spain against a Roman army and eventually lost at Zama near Carthage itself.
|
|
DUST Fiend
Immobile Infantry
1903
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
I appreciate the history lesson, but if your team only has 60 clones, the team with a higher KD/R is going to win.
Math ftw ^_^ |
HK-40
120
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:37:00 -
[12] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:I appreciate the history lesson, but if your team only has 60 clones, the team with a higher KD/R is going to win.
Math ftw ^_^
As long as its not all about capturing objectives |
DUST Fiend
Immobile Infantry
1903
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
HK-40 wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:I appreciate the history lesson, but if your team only has 60 clones, the team with a higher KD/R is going to win.
Math ftw ^_^ As long as its not all about capturing objectives
Not necessarily true, then it just depends on what KIND of KD/R players you have. If it's a bunch of people that sit back protecting themselves, picking off stragglers, then yea you're going to lose. If it's a bunch of demons that you can't fking touch, good luck reclaiming those objectives
Also, while ultimately defeated, I believe the Huns had great success with their focus on KD/R, as did the Spartans |
|
GM Hercules
State War Academy Caldari State
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
Hello guys,
Nice to read different point of views. Oh! btw! I've cleaned this thread from some offensive comments. So please keep discussing always respecting the comments and opinions of others members of this community.
Cheers!
|
|
Regis Mark V
91
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:24:00 -
[15] - Quote
I said it once and I'll say it again. Teamwork + KDR vs Teamwork + bad players= Teamwork+KDR for the win! |
EnglishSnake
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:26:00 -
[16] - Quote
Regis Mark V wrote:I said it once and I'll say it again. Teamwork + KDR vs Teamwork + bad players= Teamwork+KDR for the win!
Bad players?
Do you mean low KDR? what do you mean it makes no sense you cant just say bad player and generalize it |
Cerebral Wolf Jr
Immobile Infantry
760
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:I appreciate the history lesson, but if your team only has 60 clones, the team with a higher KD/R is going to win.
Math ftw ^_^
Not if you get to designate your clone volume. |
Draconis Ulfhednar
BetaMax.
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:HK-40 wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:I appreciate the history lesson, but if your team only has 60 clones, the team with a higher KD/R is going to win.
Math ftw ^_^ As long as its not all about capturing objectives Not necessarily true, then it just depends on what KIND of KD/R players you have. If it's a bunch of people that sit back protecting themselves, picking off stragglers, then yea you're going to lose. If it's a bunch of demons that you can't fking touch, good luck reclaiming those objectives Also, while ultimately defeated, I believe the Huns had great success with their focus on KD/R, as did the Spartans Which engagements by the spartans? They ALWAYS used priority tactics inorder to secure an objective, and then proceed to kill whatever moves. The huns were a barbarian HORDE. Key adjective. Superior numbers, and the tactics they employed, plus their initial advantage of being underestimated by more "advanced" societies often led them to victory. |
Tony Calif
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
2002
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
This is boring. Your wrong and KDR is very important. I'm bored of explaining it. Your just stupid if you think you can kill/cap/Rex while you are lying on the floor respawning.
|
Minmatar Slave 74136
Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic
291
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:51:00 -
[20] - Quote
Cerebral Wolf Jr wrote:I'd call K/D ratio fans more of a tragic figure. They comes from a different school of internet warfare, if you will. They are the best of what "MAG" has to offer, but it just doesn't work in the reality of this game. Take for example Hannibal of Carthage, by far considered the best Hellenistic general of his time. Problem is Hellenistic warfare was hilariously unprepared for the Roman school of war. A Hellenistic general was expected maneuver and delay battle until he held an undeniable advantage. Battle would commence and he would score a victory by inflicting some casualties and getting the other army to route. In Hellenistic warfare retreat and surrender were often allowed and expected, a golden avenue was given to let the other force leave. Terms of peace shortly followed thereafter. This should sound rather familiar as our K/D ration fans believe that kill/death ratios decide the day, they expect one victory after much maneuvering to make their enemy take the golden avenue of retreat, and come terms.
Roman warfare pretty much dictated that it wasn't over till you were no longer a threat. That meant total annihilation or subjugation. Carthage itself was subdued a number of times each time attempting the throw off Roman control. Finally the Romans got pissed enough they said **** it and just burnt all of Carthage to the ground and replaced it with a Roman settlement.
Just giving you all a heads up that you're using a very old style of warfare and it's since been improved on a lot by both ancient military tactics and modern day stuff too. You've all got a lot to learn. .
The only problem with this line of reasoning, though, is that it was the Romans who were using the outmoded style of warfare up until the Second Punic War in that they were still using the Hellenistic Phalanx as their primary formation and maneuver style.
In the Battle of Cannae, Hannibal used a double envelopment maneuver to use the Roman's own phalanx formation against the Romans in order to pin and destroy an estimated eight Legions of Roman troops by the numerically smaller force that Hannibal employed.
Now that take that as the reader will to support their positions on this thread, but the fallout of Cannae effectively destroyed the Roman army as a fighting force at that time, but as mentioned upthread there was no capitalization on this. However, the Roman army changed its warfare doctrines to become more tactically flexible as a result of the Cannae debacle, most notably going to its cohort and century system to allow more maneuvrability and ability to adapt to changing situations. As a result of Cannae several city-states did defect to the side of Carthage.
I would point out that Hannibal actually did pull together a racially and culturally diverse set of armies under his command, and he did so by creating his own form of culture. Hannibal united all these different groups in their hatred of the Romans, and a shared motivation like hatred can be a powerful thing under a leader that can properly motivate his men.
Other events and factors eventually led to the downfall of Carthage, and Hannibal, though.
This can almost be applied either way to your original argument, I just thought I would clairfy some of the history behind it. |
|
EnglishSnake
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:10:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tony Calif wrote:This is boring. Your wrong and KDR is very important. I'm bored of explaining it. Your just stupid if you think you can kill/cap/Rex while you are lying on the floor respawning.
Obv never played MGO |
Tony Calif
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
2002
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:30:00 -
[22] - Quote
No I didn't. I heard it's not online anymore? Out survived by MAG. That's ugly... |
DUST Fiend
Immobile Infantry
1903
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:37:00 -
[23] - Quote
Draconis Ulfhednar wrote:Which engagements by the spartans? They ALWAYS used priority tactics inorder to secure an objective, and then proceed to kill whatever moves.
Believe it or not, you actually CAN have a good KD/R and still have good tactics.
Hence, Spartans.
Or do you mean to tell me a normal soldier could typically best a normal spartan? |
xprotoman23
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1452
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
LoL vs T-C that is all |
Tony Calif
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
2002
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:41:00 -
[25] - Quote
People's belief is stronger than fact (science vs religion) |
Sleepy Zan
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
2047
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:43:00 -
[26] - Quote
*sighs* why does everyone act like having players with good K/DRs and good tactics, numbers, etc. have to be 2 seperate things. If you really want to know what wins games its both. Not dumb badass K/DR whores soloing it to there deaths or an army of scrubbs running around struggling to hold the uplinks and getting rolled you must have balance. |
Tony Calif
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
2002
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:45:00 -
[27] - Quote
Because they're garbage players Zan, with no skill and bad tactics. |
Ten-Sidhe
Osmon Surveillance Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 16:00:00 -
[28] - Quote
KDR in isolation doesn't matter. We need other stats to tell if it's padding or skill. An all sniper team could lose a match with out taking a single casualty if enough people rush obj to take it before getting killed. On other hand if two teams have same play style, the one with better kdr will probably win match.
On a strategic level, winning/losing match could be irrelevant. If a series of victories cost huge amount of isk to point wallet is running low, defender could retake lost ground rapidly once other side can't afford to pay mercs.
Or, if say a blockade prevented getting more clones to side a, side a would be very concerned with good kd. Side B could ignore kdr and obj to just cause casualties to A.
It would be nice if contracts could include bonus pay for kdr, wp, victory, enemy kills, ect...at discretion of the on putting out contract. Then contracts could be set to match strategic plan(overall strategy) at tactical level(strategy in dust battle). This would allow many interesting cases of two sides fighting for different goals, with possibility both declare victory or both lose in same match. It will happen anyway, it will just be done with direct isk transfer to corp if contracts don't support it.
|
Regis Mark V
91
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 16:09:00 -
[29] - Quote
EnglishSnake wrote:Regis Mark V wrote:I said it once and I'll say it again. Teamwork + KDR vs Teamwork + bad players= Teamwork+KDR for the win! Bad players? Do you mean low KDR? what do you mean it makes no sense you cant just say bad player and generalize it
bad players, low KDR, it's all the same.
Teamwork + KDR will beat bad players with team work and bad KDR with team work.
|
Regis Mark V
91
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 16:10:00 -
[30] - Quote
xprotoman23 wrote:LoL vs T-C that is all
^^^^^^THIS! ALL DAY! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |