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.

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.

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.

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)

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

I said it once and I'll say it again. Teamwork + KDR vs Teamwork + bad players= Teamwork+KDR for the win!

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 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

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.
.

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.

Which engagements by the spartans? They ALWAYS used priority tactics inorder to secure an objective, and then proceed to kill whatever moves.

Bad players?

Do you mean low KDR? what do you mean it makes no sense you cant just say bad player and generalize it

LoL vs T-C that is all

No I didn't. I heard it's not online anymore? Out survived by MAG. That's ugly...

MGO wasn't that great TBH...

No I didn't. I heard it's not online anymore? Out survived by MAG. That's ugly...

bad players, low KDR, it's all the same.

Teamwork + KDR will beat bad players with team work and bad KDR with team work.

^^^^^^THIS! ALL DAY!

Cant really say that tbh because the T-C side bas basically 2 bad clans to begin with and didnt even try since they had players who just sniped in ther spawn and were useless

That T-C side was the worst side picked for that match

So having a bunch of circle holders and "nurse nicks " is a bad idea to begin with. If you lack the ability to pew pew chances are your going to get walked all over. This isn't some new age concept. It's been part of shooters for awhile.

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.

As i remember it

Circle holders vs killers or whatever but the circle holders they picked were the bottom of the barrel with no tactics in any of the matches if i recall against LOL which had ther **** together

T-C would have done better if they didnt show up

T-C didnt try at all so to use it as an example is pointless

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.

it's like a secret war here, people who take heart in KD vs people who couldn't care less. wonder who's winning this war ^^

Yea but Regis T-C didnt even try

They didnt ask barely anyone and just picked ppl form ther clans, best circle holders lolno tbh had no gameplan or didnt even bother

It was lambs to the slaughter

LoL didn't try either.

You didnt have to against tht lot

So if I read this correct you got to have a high KDR to be of any use or be able to play as a team. So me and the other 75% of average and poor players might as well pack up and leave the game.

I 'm not the best but I play for fun and don't take it serious, I may be old but I thought the idea was to have fun winning was just a bonus

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!

GladI to cheer you up

Think what he's trying to say is that EVE and Dust by extension are taken very seriously.

Yes the sarcasm didn't come across very well in the first post, but I thought the second one would have.

Less spam, more history.

Less spam, more history.

Yea there are other important things in a tactical shooter but if you think kdr is not one of the most important stats then you are very foolish. The only time kdr is negligible is if your playing full support and even then you'll be more successful not being dead. These threads are annoying

where does it say DUST is a tactical shooter?

empire total war ftw ^^

I just bought it for $5 on steam but no MP campaign thats wack.

As for the OP K/dr and team work both win battles but Strategy, cunning, and sheer balls win Wars.

Edit: Think bigger than just one battle

Yea there are other important things in a tactical shooter but if you think kdr is not one of the most important stats then you are very foolish. The only time kdr is negligible is if your playing full support and even then you'll be more successful not being dead. These threads are annoying

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.