The Kill Debate; Do Kills Matter?

[ZelDan]

Is there any enemy near by?

1. If no = ink any ground that is not your team colors
2. if yes = fight enemy so that you can go back to doing number 1

That being said, kills matter so that you are wasting the enemies time through making them respawn. You should really only being worrying about kills if an enemy is near you. they should be coming to you, not you trying to go to them.

 

[Mitten]

Kills matter in an odd way.
Splatoon is set up in a way were there are 3 or 4 choke points to keep an enemy at bay from. However it can be difficult to push an enemy back to said point. The best way is to kill them. This makes the enemy have to respawn and gives them 2 options. To squid there way back were they have to pass through these choke points or to super jump. Obviously super jumping SEEMS like a better option however your team would know as well as the opposing team were the enemy is going allowing you to kill them as soon as they land in most cases. If you keep killing you can get more chances to hold the enemy at bay and therefore win. It isn't the objective however does that mean that there are no perks to killing/ down falls to dying? No there are things that happen and effect the game for the killer or killed.

 

[FirestormNeos]

I'm going to use Walleye Warehouse in Turf Wars as a specific example of this as it is easiest to visualize for me. "Hills before Kills" players will try to cover the middle territory before moving on towards the enemy base. "Kills before Hills" players, on the other hand, will make it their mission to get to the enemy spawn and rack up kills as soon as they see an opportunity, even if it means leaving the mid-section uninked and the enemy ahead by 30% for the whole match.

I'd like to compliment Nintendo on making the Splats/Kills/KOs/Whatever Their Called unimportant to EXP, Money AND Gear Upgrades, as well as making the splat count smaller as a psychological tactic. This makes sure the more selfish players want to benefit the team instead of screwing them over.

So IMO, if you want nice things, help your team and make getting splats second priority. If you just want kills, go play Hatred instead.

 

[Alus]

So IMO, if you want nice things, help your team and make getting splats second priority. If you just want kills, go play Hatred instead.

Getting a kill in Hatred is not 1/60th as satisfying as getting a splat tho.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Getting a kill in Hatred is not 1/60th as satisfying as getting a splat tho.

I was trying to reference a game about death. Hatred was first to come to mind due to whiny people on Twitter. Then play a game where it's satisfying and helpful to your team to get kills instead of Splatoon.

 

[NLALEX]

Of course they matter. Splatting an opponent not only gives you a burst of your ink where they were, but also makes them unable to ink anything for the duration of their respond time.

Kills should not take priority, but as long as an opponent is dead they can't cover any ground. They're not as important as claiming turf, but if you don't kill anyone you will be killed yourself and you will significantly damage your chances of victory.

 

[missingno]

I'm going to use Walleye Warehouse in Turf Wars as a specific example of this as it is easiest to visualize for me. "Hills before Kills" players will try to cover the middle territory before moving on towards the enemy base. "Kills before Hills" players, on the other hand, will make it their mission to get to the enemy spawn and rack up kills as soon as they see an opportunity, even if it means leaving the mid-section uninked and the enemy ahead by 30% for the whole match.

That doesn't mean kills are unimportant, that means don't overextend. Trying to spawn camp is an inefficient and risky way of killing compared to holding down a choke point.

Or to put it from another angle, how do you hold onto that hill? By killing anyone who tries to take it.

 

[toadster101]

Killing your opponents makes it easier to accomplish your goal, but you should never go out of your way to kill people if doing so detracts from the main goal.

So yes, they matter. But not in an "EPIC KILLSTREAK XDDD" kind of way.

 

[FirestormNeos]

That doesn't mean kills are unimportant, that means don't overextend. Trying to spawn camp is an inefficient and risky way of killing compared to holding down a choke point.

Or to put it from another angle, how do you hold onto that hill? By killing anyone who tries to take it.

Oh. Yeah, that does seem more like overextending, now that I think about it. (Though I do still think players of the "Kills before Hills" mindset inherently try to overextend for the purpose of getting kills)

 

[SirroMinus1]

Depending on were you splatter your enemy, How many you Splatter & Your Location. if you manage to take out 2 or 3 very close to there turf there's a good chance you just won the game. if you Splatter the whole enemy team and there on your turf your team is most likely in the other team clutches.
Positioning & holding your turf while gaining the enemys is the key to success

 

[Metarai]

As a sniper main, I usually will go for the kill, because not killing them is only an opening for them to kill me. If you see anyone on the opposite team just splatting ink, it is probably better to kill them. However, it is not a good idea to be swimming around looking for people to kill unless you are in ranked mode and your team has control. Like what some people said before, the middle of the stages are the most valuable, ink around your base can be easily repainted by your team, and vise versa for the opposing side. Defending the middle is important, but staying in one place in wait isn't helping either. So yes, kills are very important, one person can make an easy comeback by spraying ink when no one else is around. But you should not be killing unless the opportunity gives itself to you or if that one person is running amok on your turf.

 

[BluEyes]

1)Kills are important but its just a part of the bigger picture.
2) You can go on a rampage but getting control of the zone is the objective.
3) I have had matches where my whole team hunted for squids and no one bothered to ink as we assumed the other guy would do it.
4) You can never fully track down a decent team.
5) Supressing fire while someone inks is a better tactic as it usually reasonable deterence.
6) Killing snipers should be the first priority if you have other options.
7) Not getting killed is better than killing
8) If you stay alive long enough, you become a good landing point.
9) If you gain a strategic point by killing then yes.
10) If you kill so far up in the enemy position, you leave gaps behind.
11) Although it is the same for everyone, Killing reveals your position and weapon.
12) If you are a sniper, thats not good. but of course you have to kill if you are a sniper.
13) It just means you either have someone cover or you move to other positions.

 

[Saturn]

Yes, kills are worth it even in turf war. Think about what the opponent is doing and could be doing, and then you can realize the opportunity cost for having died.

For example, let's just use you as an example:
To not think extremely far into the future, we'll divide up what you'll be doing with the present and the future.

Presently can only be one thing, because it is of course the thing you're currently doing. So for the example, let's say there's no one around you know of and you're presently spreading ink.

In the future, you realize the opponents are going to push into the area soon, so you decide you'll be doing one of a few things depending on the need of the moment.
A) Pressuring
B) Punishing (killing people who overextend)
C) covering their backs, so they don't have anywhere to go to (flanking without immediate punishing)
D) covering more turf

Now let's say an opponent charger shows up right as the future is about to become the present, and shoots you.
Now you are forced into what will be labeled as action E for a time: respawning and jumping or moving back up. Essentially, for dying you lose out on your current present and whatever future options you could be making the present that could be crucial to the team for the length of E. A, B, C, and D are all now impossible until you move back up, and may stop being viable options by the time you are able to.

So, to sum it up, when you die you stop contributing what you are doing and many future options become unviable by the time you have completed situation E. so Dying is worse during crucial points when you have more and more important futures or are performing important jobs. The higher the opportunity cost was for the person who just died, the more important the kill was.

Of course, you also must pay an opportunity cost FOR killing, as all the other options you did not pick are lost to the now current present. You essentially pay an opportunity cost to make your opponent take a bigger opportunity cost, and if you screw up and die yourself, then it's even worse, because your opponent didn't commit to the killing option as hard as you did, meaning he would likely have lost less time in which he could be doing other things than you did going for a kill, and are now also losing due to respawn + move up.

an entire team being pushed back to spawn by the entire other team is the extreme result of what can happen if your team is forced to pay several opportunity costs over and over from dying, as they collectively lose more and more compared to the other team until they're backed up in spawn.

You could just say "If you die you stop inking so don't do that. If you shoot them but die anyway that's bad too, so don't be dumb either."

 

[BluEyes]

Lets say, we have a 16/10 player X and 5/1 player Y.

X has superb marksmanship, he put out 16 but at the same time he is also spending quite a bit of time away from the zone respawning.

Y has fewer kills but he spends more time on the zone. He could be doing anything from splat bombings, inkstrikes to just being there as a landing point.

My point is, it is more important to stay as long as you possible can at the zone rather than going for kills and getting killed yourself. In splat zones, its better to pick your fights. The longer the four of you are at the zone defending and attacking, the higher your chances of winning.

 

[Reetrider]

I think going for a kill is completely situational in turf wars. I've let many people just run past me so I could get behind them and ink up their base area. Once a team notices this is happening 2 or even 3 will jump to their spawn leaving the mid ground open for the taking. Splatzones I havn't played too much of but from the 10 or so matches it felt way more important killing the enemy team.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Splatoon is a lot like League. Harassing the enemy and starving them of gold and xp inking territory and specials is more important than actually killing them. It is better for you to survive while the enemy runs away then to have both of you go down fighting.

 

[Fightersword]

Splatoon is a lot like League. Harassing the enemy and starving them of gold and xp inking territory and specials is more important than actually killing them. It is better for you to survive while the enemy runs away then to have both of you go down fighting.

This guy gets it^. Though I've never played League. Of course trades are ok sometimes, like when you're 3 alive to one or something, just to remove that jump point and make them all swim.

 

[FirestormNeos]

This guy gets it^. Though I've never played League. Of course trades are ok sometimes, like when you're 3 alive to one or something, just to remove that jump point and make them all swim.

League can be fun when your internet isn't garbage. I also recommend steering away from buying any Tier 2 Runes. Complete waste of time getting them. One last warning: community is toxic. Like, youtube comment section levels of "I swear to the Great Zapfish I'm going to get cancer just by reading this."

 

[TehMud]

I say kills matter, but it depends on your role. I pretty much solely play Splat Zone at this point though.

But for example if you're a Charger you're not focused on hunting people down, but you are focused on killing whoever comes into your territory. If you're offensive and maybe a Blaster then kills are your goal for the most part since you want to push the other team back. But you never want to go squid hunting as that tends to waste time, unless perhaps the enemy is flanking behind all of you.

You have to be aware of your team though. You can't have everyone on offense and no one on defense. It always depends on your team as to how much kills matter personally.

With a blaster I've gotten like 20 kills in a round but we still lost because either I or the team wasn't focused on the objective. Tunnel Vision is nasty.

 

[Chapter Serf]

Kills matter. Any time an enemy isn't doing something is bonus for you. You take them out, they're not inking turf (regardless of if it's turf or zones). Their special loses charge. I've found that my score is usually better in games where I get more kills than in games where I die more. If I'm living, I'm either inking or denying turf. If I'm dead, I'm doing nothing. It applies to the other side as well. Furthermore, with a splatted enemy inkling near me, I can avoid this scenario:

Which wastes time. I think some weapons are better at killing than others. I use the Tentatek Splattershot. It inks ground well enough, but I know there are others that are better at inking terrain than that. Let me waste my ink killing this guy, and leave the roller free to ink more terrain.

At the same time, I don't think you should dedicate yourself to being a hunter/killer type roll, unless you're on a team with good coordination, which really doesn't exist yet because of the randomness of it all.