The Instigator
deamonomic
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Maikuru
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

In CoD Objective game types, Slaying is as important as Objective running

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Maikuru
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 590 times Debate No: 19512
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

deamonomic

Pro

Hi all, It has been a while since I was last on this sight. Last time I was here my faith in the community voting was shattered. But I am back now and wanting to give this site another go. The topic today is one that has been raging on the Call Of Duty forums for a long time.

Okay first off I want to say here and now that I know my spelling and grammar suck. I would ask that you all exclude the typing errors you see here, unless what ever is written is above and beyond unreadable.

The argument started when a player was bragging about getting a lot of kills in an Objective based game mode, such as Domination. Now the Dispute is that some players say that he was not helpful to his team at all (because he had 0 caps and 0 defends) and that he was kill "Whoring". I Disagree with that. I believe that he was a great help to his teams over all progress. I am of the opinion that slaying AND objective running are both equally important when dealing with experienced and good teams.

The con of this argument will be arguing that Killing holds "less" value in Objective based matches when compared to the objective runners. The Pro, will be arguing that Slaying is just as important as Objective running. I will let the Con go first in this debate. I look forward to having fun with you all.

rules: No new arguments in the last round.
if you are unable to post anything within a reasonable amount of time thats fine just post a comment or message me letting me know

OH and one last thing, here is some epic music to listen to while debating. 145 of the most epic songs you will ever hear, a total of six and a half hours. http://youtu.be...
Maikuru

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate. As a video game fan, I look forward to our discussion.


Introductions

My opponent and I will be discussing the first-person shooter franchise Call of Duty [1]. Recent installments of the series offer numerous multiplayer modes, each of which involves killing your opponents, meeting objectives, or some combination of both [2; see Game Modes]. This debate will focus on the second game type, in which players must complete a certain number of tasks within a time limit.

My role here will be to demonstrate that during such objective-based matches, completing the team's task is of more value (i.e. relative worth, merit, or importance [3]) than strictly killing enemy players. My opponent will argue that these actions are of equal value.


Opening Arguments

Only Way to Win

Pro uses the multiplayer mode Domination [4] to frame his case. In this mode, teams capture flags and receive 1 point for every 5 seconds a flag is held. The first team to reach 200 points wins. No other factors, including enemy kills, contribute points to the team's total.

Where I'm going here is pretty straightforward. By definition, these matches can only be won by completing the objective. Killing alone will NEVER win a match because it earns no points. As the goal of the match is to win, completing objectives is necessarily more important than anything else. Killing enemies is helpful, but not necessary.


When it Comes to Experience, Capture > Kill

While playing Domination, players are awarded experience points (or XP) for killing enemies, assisting team mates, and capturing flags [4; see Individual XP]. XP does not count toward the team total (and thus cannot win you the match) but is instead used to improve the player's character.

In four of the most recent games in the franchise - Modern Warfare 1 and 2, World at War, and Black Ops - capturing flags awards a player the most possible XP (either 15 or 150, depending on the game). XP awarded for kills comes in second (5-10 or 50-100, depending on the game). In this sense, completing an objective is very literally more valuable than killing an enemy. Between 30-60% more valuable, in fact.


We have 4 rounds, so I'll leave it at that.


References

1. http://www.callofduty.com...
2. http://callofduty.wikia.com...;
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://callofduty.wikia.com...
Debate Round No. 1
deamonomic

Pro

Thank you for your post. and I appreciate that you are taking the other participant into account (me) and posting sooner rather then later.

Your first argument states that Killing alone will never allow you to win. But neither will solely going after objectives. In game modes Like Search and Destroy or Demolition, If my team keeps your team dead the entire game then we win. Against a team (For future reference to everyone reading this debate, when I refer to the other team, I am assuming that they are decently competent players at the game) of mostly slayers vs a team of players going solely for the objective, the Slayers have an overwhelming advantage. The only game type where they stand a slight chance is Domination. But even in that one the game can be forced to a tie at the very least, by keeping them off all flags all game long. Though admittedly that is rather difficult to do.

As you said you have to at least some objective playing to win. But that does not make it more important then the Slayers (by slayer I mean someone who is killing rather then planting the bomb/capturing the flag) role. Some think that their only goal is to accumulate a higher Kill to death ratio. This is untrue. Their role is to keep the other team busy so that the objective player can complete the objective without being killed by a grenade, RPG, Semtex, or the other team. After all you cannot plant or defuse the bomb, finish capturing the domination point, or carry the flag back to the base and capture it, if you are dead and waiting for the next round/respawn. The slayers create a buffer zone for the objective players. This buffer zone allows them to complete their objective.

Regarding your point about Experience (EXP), Its more of a invalid point (since we are discussing helping the team, and EXP only helps out the individual and not the team as a whole) but I will respond anyways, while it is true if you are looking for EXP, doing the objective does help you gain experience. So does killing, Yes one capture does give you more points then a single kill. however in any given game you are likely to have far more kills then objective points. If you decide to focus on killing then you can rank up just as much if not faster then the other way.

Example: domination. Lets assume your team is playing this by the book, and they have captured 2 points and will not let the other team take them. Here the slayer has the advantage EXP wise, because the players who captured the flags only receive a one time EXP bump from each flag. Now because they have 2 flags and are holding them they will continue to gather EXP from kills as they prevent the opposing team from reaching the flags and taking them back.
Maikuru

Con

My opponent provided a well thought out response. I will endeavor to return the favor.

Counter Arguments

Killing-Based vs. Objective-Based Matches

In my previous round, I demonstrated that in objective-based Call of Duty matches, completing your objective is the only way to win. Pro replies with two other game modes that do take killing into account: Search & Destroy [1] and Demolition [2].

Search & Destroy gameplay is described as "A one-sided game mode, the goal is for an attacking side to either eliminate the defending team or detonate either one of two bomb sites. [1]" Demolition mirrors Search & Destroy but allows for player respawns. Now, as killing is a rewarded element of these game modes and can result in a win, they cannot be considered objective-based matches and are irrelevant in this debate. At best, these modes can be described as having objective elements, which doesn't fit the resolution.

Pro is aware of the difference between game types and concedes that objectives MUST be completed in order to win objective-based matches:

"As you said you have to at least some objective playing to win. But that does not make it more important then the Slayers
(by slayer I mean someone who is killing rather then planting the bomb/capturing the flag) role."

Since Pro agrees that objectives are necessary for victory in the game modes we're discussing, he also understands why the modes he presented above do not fit that criteria.

Only Way to Win

I agree with Pro's assertion that killing the enemy is a helpful practice, but it is done only to assist one's team in obtaining the objective or impede the enemy's advance on their objective. At all times, the team's overall task is the primary concern and the only means of victory. Now, if winning was impossible without having certain players dedicated only to eliminating the enemy, Pro's position would be stronger (but still ultimately incorrect). However, even Pro admits that victory is possible without slayers:

"The only game type where they [objective-chasers] stand a slight chance is Domination. But even in that one the game
can be forced to a tie at the very least, by keeping them off all flags all game long. Though admittedly that is rather difficult
to do."

Killing the enemy makes life easier but players can succeed without it. As objective-chasers are necessary to win and slayers are not, the former group is of more value.

When it Comes to Experience, Capture > Kill

My opponent claims an XP argument is invalid here because it does not impact the team as a whole. However, according to Pro, my burden in this debate "will be arguing that Killing holds "less" value in Objective based matches when compared to the objective runners." This says nothing about arguments focusing only on teams and not individuals. As various actions are given quantified values in these matches, this contention is both appropriate and straightforward.

Pro concedes that completing objectives hold more XP value than killing. Still, he goes on to say that this difference can be overcome if someone kills enough. Similarly, if I gather enough pennies, they will eventually be worth more than a quarter. This does not make a penny more valuable than a quarter. In a one-to-one comparison, objectives are more valuable to players than a kill.

Conclusion

Working solely from Pro's own resolution, examples, and descriptions, I have shown how slaying is less important to teams (in terms of winning) and individuals (in terms of improving one's character) than are objectives. If this was not the case, objective-based matches simply wouldn't exist.

References

1. http://callofduty.wikia.com...
2. http://callofduty.wikia.com...(Game_Mode)
Debate Round No. 2
deamonomic

Pro

I would like to formally forfeit to my opponent. He beat me fair and square. I urge the others to vote for him
Maikuru

Con

I thank deamonomic for a very interesting debate. I've never played Call of Duty before so I had a lot of fun discussing this topic.

Debate Round No. 3
deamonomic

Pro

deamonomic forfeited this round.
Maikuru

Con

I accept Pro's forfeit. It's been fun.

Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by OberHerr 2 years ago
OberHerr
Wow, you've never played it, and you debated this good? You sound like me with Halo! :)
Posted by deamonomic 2 years ago
deamonomic
im pretty much always around. im laid up because of pain problems so anytime is good
Posted by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
Never mind, I finished my first round. Let me know if you have a preference for posting time (morning, afternoon, evening, or night) and I'll try to accommodate. 24 hours to respond isn't an especially long time and I don't want to put you out.
Posted by deamonomic 2 years ago
deamonomic
thats fine :) thank you for letting me know
Posted by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
I look forward to discussing this topic with you. I plan on taking the full 24 hours to respond, as I've never actually played Call of Duty lol.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 2 years ago
drafterman
deamonomicMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 2 years ago
jm_notguilty
deamonomicMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
deamonomicMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.