SpaceJam2k Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) @skyprah if we all found out we would receive $40,000 if we came first.. everyone would camp.. but in this situation what's the point? to win the game? with 1 kill? and do this every single game.... with all that you receive is what 200 thousand points.? ----------------------- soo using a tournament in this discussion is nearly useless to what we're saying. because we're not playing for money. ----------------------- though if summit1g got 24 kills and he died to someone with 2 kills and summit came 2nd place. everyone would still agree that summit1g is the better player. why i think this is because he had a harder pass to get 2nd place, (killing extremely experienced players) and coming 2nd.. @Acidbubbl Edited February 1, 2017 by SpaceJam2k Sorrow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyprah Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) Look at all the diamond players. They get way more kills than the royalty players. Does this mean they're better? According to you, yes it does. And the point of getting 200k points for a win is to rank up fast. You're also training yourself in clutch situations and gradually improving as you play on. You will begin to start getting more kills which is needed to improve your rank. This whole debate on who is better is pointless because you are judging people on their tactics not their skill. There is literally no right or wrong answer as it's a different situation for every scenario/player. Edited February 1, 2017 by skyprah Larko 1 http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561197975262643.png http://steamsignature.com/group/default/KillzoneGamingAU.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceJam2k Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) What's the point of camping and playing with the gas as a newbie and getting a realllly good top 10 but then when you try to play for kills, you always die.. would you rather a top 10 of you coming 15-20 place with a lot of kills in all 10 of your matches or you coming 1-3 place with 1-3 kills? --------------------------- exactly.. I would want the top 10 matches where i get 15-20 place. because my opinion, id rather have more kills on my matches then just win with 1-2 kills. --------------------------- and if i did start camping and got that top 10, but then i decide that i wanted to start playing for kills, it would be extremely hard to get a new top 10.. cause even if i got 10 matches with 15-20 kills. i can't showcase that off because my recent top 10 matches are fucking 1-3 kills and 1-3 place... (my opinion) @skyprah @Acidbubbl Edited February 1, 2017 by SpaceJam2k Sorrow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyprah Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, SpaceJam2k said: What's the point of camping and playing with the gas as a newbie and getting a realllly good top 10 but then when you try to play for kills, you always die.. would you rather a top 10 of you coming 15-20 place with a lot of kills in all 10 of your matches or you coming 1-3 place with 1-3 kills? --------------------------- exactly.. I would want the top 10 matches where i get 15-20 place. because my opinion, id rather have more kills on my matches then just win with 1-2 kills. --------------------------- and if i did start camping and got that top 10, but then i decide that i wanted to start playing for kills, it would be extremely hard to get a new top 10.. cause even if i got 10 matches with 15-20 kills. i can't showcase that off because my recent top 10 matches are fucking 1-3 kills and 1-3 place... (my opinion) @skyprah @Acidbubbl You're changing the subject lol. Why does there have to a right or wrong method of progressing as a player? Everyone has their own ways of improving. Just because someone camps half the game and wins the match doesn't necessarily mean that they're less skilled than a player who had multiple more kills. I play somewhat passive in game. If someone shoots me, I get out of my car and shoot back. If I see someone running, I engage. If I hit someone, I will chase them down until I kill them. This is a passive method of playing which works great for me and i get better each game. My kill to match ratio is perfectly fine. If i want to get 6+ kills a game I can do that perfectly fine. I switch up my tactics all the time. Why does there have to be a right or wrong way to play lol Edited February 1, 2017 by skyprah http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561197975262643.png http://steamsignature.com/group/default/KillzoneGamingAU.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAYEX Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Getting heaps of kills help you get better you never going to get royalty or any where near there because you get more points for kills and you need 20 bombs so all up the person with the most kills is the better player in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm! Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 1 hour ago, skyprah said: Look at all the diamond players. They get way more kills than the royalty players. Does this mean they're better? According to you, yes it does.. A royalty player that has 10 kills throughout all their top 10 games does not deserve to be a royalty. I will happily bet money on myself to take out a royalty in a 1v1 with that amount of kills in their top 10 anyday. I would also bet money on a random diamond player with a higher K/M to take out that same royalty also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyprah Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Thrasher said: A royalty player that has 10 kills throughout all their top 10 games does not deserve to be a royalty. I will happily bet money on myself to take out a royalty in a 1v1 with that amount of kills in their top 10 anyday. I would also bet money on a random diamond player with a higher K/M to take out that same royalty also. We have the same K:M ratio except mine is slightly better but according to you guys youre 100% better than ne? I play passive and Im ranked 80 Edited February 1, 2017 by skyprah http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561197975262643.png http://steamsignature.com/group/default/KillzoneGamingAU.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm! Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 1 minute ago, skyprah said: We have the same K:M ratio except mine is slightly better. I play passive and Im ranked 80 And i have 100+ more kills then you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acid Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) Too sum it up The player that gets 10+ kills and comes 2nd is (I believe) the better player than someone who only gets 1 kill and comes first. I don't care if you got a "win" or not, its how you got there. Edited February 1, 2017 by Acidbubbl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceJam2k Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 100% agreed @Acidbubbl Sorrow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyprah Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Acidbubbl said: Too sum it up The player that gets 10+ kills and comes 2nd is (I believe) the better player than someone who only gets 1 kill and comes first. I don't care if you got a "win" or not, its how you got there. Youre putting every passive player into a stereotype and saying they arnt good because they play one bad game and get one kill but come first but oh the other guy is still always better. So if the number one player in the world is a passive player hes not the number one player even though he wins every tournament. This is literally what youre saying. Okay then Edited February 1, 2017 by skyprah http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561197975262643.png http://steamsignature.com/group/default/KillzoneGamingAU.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panthA Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 The guy with kills has a greater chance of winning over time but I think we have put far too much emphasis on the kills. As far as I understand it, H1Z1 (not only being a terrible game) is about combining aggressive tactics and passivity at the right times in order to survive longer. I think that question really comes down to which is a better strategy: Outright aggressiveness, taking every fight and winning the majority of them or outright passive play and avoiding all fights? Without choosing a middle ground where the better play lies which would get you further? (This is assuming @SpaceJam2k 's example is to be taken literally.) This comes down to a choice of playstyle, not who has more kills. Would it matter if the passive player had 2,3,4 or 5 kills or would we still be deciding who was better (Without going to an extremely and saying the passive player would have the same amount of kills as the aggressive player)? Without a mix of the playstyles, which would perform greater? I'm not sure, I don't play it. I assumed it would be a similar answer to that of CS:GO but they are far too different to compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acid Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 We are talking about H1Z1 @skyprah no other game. The number one player in the world can't be passive, that's my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyprah Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Thrasher said: And i have 100+ more kills then you But you've played 130 more games than me lol and my K:M ratio is slightly better. I average slightly over the amount of kills per match as you. In 130 more games my K:M will be better than what it is now as I improve but yeah because I play passive most games I must be the shitter player. Id rather start with my method and get rank 80 instead of play an extra 130 games and get rank 650. Aint got time for dat Edited February 1, 2017 by skyprah http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561197975262643.png http://steamsignature.com/group/default/KillzoneGamingAU.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyprah Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 9 minutes ago, Acidbubbl said: We are talking about H1Z1 @skyprah no other game. The number one player in the world can't be passive, that's my point. No one is saying that but what you are saying that if you play passive you are automaticly shit and everyone is better than you. How do you know that passive player cant go crazy and get 15 kills and finish 20th instead of a few kills by playing passively and win all the time. There is no right or wrong answer in this as its different for every player. http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561197975262643.png http://steamsignature.com/group/default/KillzoneGamingAU.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironstrike Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) In H1Z1 the point is to win. When l play l dont play to get kills l play to win the game so however you do it is your choice but the better player is the one who beats all 100 of people in the game. I dont see the problem with tactics. The safe zone will get smaller so if there are 15 people left in the space of a few squares and he manages to avoid all of them and ends up winning the is the better player. And like @skyprah mentioned playing like this does not make you incapable of getting 15 kills it is a choice of playstyle Edited February 1, 2017 by Ironstrike [soundcloud]https://soundcloud.com/user-441726243/cant-stop-changing-1?in=user-441726243/sets/deep-house[/soundcloud] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm! Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 There is an easy way of playing, then there is the skilled way of playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironstrike Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 But if you use the easy way of playing and still win doesn't that make you better? [soundcloud]https://soundcloud.com/user-441726243/cant-stop-changing-1?in=user-441726243/sets/deep-house[/soundcloud] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyprah Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) Here is the original thread question as this thread is completely off topic to what originally was asked. 20 hours ago, SpaceJam2k said: Who's the better player? The guy that camps and plays with the gas the whole game and only gets 1 Kill which is at the end to win the game. or The guy that goes around killing a lot of people and then dies to the guy that camped and played with the gas at the end of game and places 2nd. How can you judge someones skill based off of a one game scenario? Some passive players are more skilled than aggressive players and some aggressive players are more skilled than passive players. The passive player won this one game scenario. You can't define someones skill level due to the tactics they're using to win one match. It is a different story If you had those two players play 10 matches. If the passive player averages a couple of kills per game and the aggressive player averages 10 kills per game. If the passive player always finishes a position or two better than the aggressive player then I would say without a doubt that the aggressive player is more skilled than the passive player but this is not what the original thread question is asking Edited February 1, 2017 by skyprah http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561197975262643.png http://steamsignature.com/group/default/KillzoneGamingAU.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceJam2k Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Ironstrike said: In H1Z1 the point is to win. When l play l dont play to get kills l play to win the game so however you do it is your choice but the better player is the one who beats all 100 of people in the game. I dont see the problem with tactics. The safe zone will get smaller so if there are 15 people left in the space of a few squares and he manages to avoid all of them and ends up winning the is the better player. And like @skyprah mentioned playing like this does not make you incapable of getting 15 kills it is a choice of playstyle Yeah.. the player that got the most kills that came 2nd beat all 100 people too. But he jut managed to die and come second even tho he got the most kills. (he is the better player cause he got the most kills and came second) were as the camper came first with 1 kill... second is 1 player away from a win... 1 player... why the fuck should the camper get the win and be happy about killing 1 person that actually tried the whole game and got a very good score....... unlike the camper which got, what 1-2 kills?? I mean great. you came first. but it took no skill what soever. and it's the easiest thing to do. (camp the gas the whole game) the other player is better because he actually went out and survived whiles killing multiple people. Edited February 1, 2017 by SpaceJam2k Sorrow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceJam2k Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, skyprah said: Here is the original thread question How can you judge someones skill based off of a one game scenario? Some passive players are more skilled than aggressive players and some aggressive players are more skilled than passive players. The passive player won this one game scenario. It is a different story If you had those two players play 10 matches. If the passive player averages a couple of kills per game and the aggressive player averages 10 kills per game. If the passive player always finishes a position or two lower than the aggressive player then I would say without a doubt that the aggressive player is more skilled than the passive player but this is not what the original thread question is asking lol stormentv as example. if his top 10 matches were no wins and placed 3-8 in all of them and had an average 25 kills a game. and then theres a person that comes 1-2 in all games but only has 1-2kills. Who's the better player? obviously in my opinion it would be stormentv.. (my logic) thoughts? @Thrasher @Acidbubbl @skyprah @panthA @KAYEX Edited February 1, 2017 by SpaceJam2k Sorrow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyprah Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, SpaceJam2k said: Yeah.. the player that got the most kills that came 2nd beat all 100 people too. But he jut managed to die and come second even tho he got the most kills. (he is the better player cause he got the most kills and came second) were as the camper came first with 1 kill... second is 1 player away from a win... 1 player... why the fuck should the camper get the win and be happy about killing 1 person that actually tried the whole game and got a very good score....... unlike the camper which got, what 1-2 kills?? Okay so what happens with the next match? The passive player gets a good spawn and some early kills while the aggressive player gets a bad spawn and bad loot and has to run across the map to survive. The passive player now has 10 kills due to good circumstances and the aggressive player has limited ammo and supplies. The aggressive player gets a lucky shot on the passive player at the end of the match in a 1v1. Oh no but now the passive player is the better player even though he now lost because he came second and got 10 kills! You can't judge a players skill level over someone elses in a one match scenario lol http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561197975262643.png http://steamsignature.com/group/default/KillzoneGamingAU.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceJam2k Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 Mhmmm the chances of getting bad loot and using that as an excuse it pretty terrible. because the chances of getting bad loot every game and having to camp gas is pretty low.. were not talking one match. were talking about all the matches u camp gas in in general Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyprah Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, SpaceJam2k said: stormentv as example. if his top 10 matches were no wins and placed 3-8 in all of them and had an average 25 kills a game. and then theres a person that comes 1-2 in all games but only has 1-2kills. Who's the better player? obviously in my opinion it would be stormentv.. (my logic) Yes obviously but that is not the question you asked. You did not ask about a professional player, you asked about a 1 match scenario between someone playing passive vs someone aggressive. You are the masterdebater! Edited February 1, 2017 by skyprah http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561197975262643.png http://steamsignature.com/group/default/KillzoneGamingAU.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censor Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) The person that is better is the one that wins the most. everyone has a different playstyle. kills don't mean anything Edited February 1, 2017 by censor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now