BFG Lamers

I am going to start with quoting the part of my post that you chose to object to.

If you deliberately decide not to take hanging
pieces in chess, you are not playing chess.
Not true. Players very often leave potential capture moves untaken because it will not put them in a good situation in subsequent moves. Chess isn't about making a kill every move, it's about making the best possible move.

First of, never say 'Not true.' Say 'I don't think that is true.' instead. As before, you didn't reply to what I had said, but to what you thought I had said. If taking a piece makes you worse off then the piece wasn't hanging. A hanging piece is a piece you can take without being punished for it. Similar to respawn frags, isn't it? I say it again: not taking hanging pieces disrupts the natural flow of a chess game and is riduculous. The only explanation for not taking it would be not seeing it. It would be considered a gross blunder to ignore the easiest path to victory. By laws of chess a player must use the opportunity to win, since winning is the accepted objective of the game. Chess players hone their skills and study chess theory, and not taking a hanging piece would make a player a laughing stock.

In chess, no one will appear and suddenly kill you without you having the opportunity to see it coming and do something about it. (Whether or not you do depends on your own skill).

If you hang a piece, you probably don't see it coming. After the inevitable happens and your opponent takes the piece, you cannot change it. It does depend on your skill not to die in deathmatch. After you win a duel, you are entitled to respawns. As for skill -- a more skilled player will kill you more times when you respawn, and will escape more of your respawn frags. Same in chess. The higher-skilled player makes fewer mistakes, and punishes the mistakes of his opponents more severely. That goes for both chess and deathmatch.

The biggest difference is that Chess is in no way based on chance. No one complains about lamers in chess because there is always a way to know what is coming.

Chess is very heavily based on probability. Both players gamble on what they believe to be the best moves. Situations where everything can be seen to its end are very rare. Chess players allow for several possible replies to every move they make, and try to cover every possibility. One player plans better and wins. Same in deathmatch. Respawn locations are fixed in their places, their number is finite. You can count on one of them to always happen. Memorize respawn locations, be ready to act when you respawn, have a clear plan for each respawn location that you might appear at. You always know where your opponent is and what he is doing for a short period of time after he frags you. If he was shooting the BFG, you don't respawn at once. If you respawn and die from the blast, it is your own fault. If he shot you with the SSG, respawn and be gone while he reloads. Keep track of game variables like his health. If you have done damage to him and you don't see him nearby, he may have gone to heal himself. If you feel disoriented after you respawn, if you have no plan and need to take a look around, that only means there is a lot of room for improvement in your game.
Respawn frags are not inevitable, and it is theoretically possible with perfect play to go through the entire game without being fragged once, given sufficient ammo supplies.

[/quote]If you have to win based on chance, (respawnfrags) you're not playing either. You may come out on top in the end, but I would have no respect for your skill.[/quote]Good players manipulate probabilities of the events in the game. They don't just accidentally happen upon you when you respawn. It is not chance, and it takes skill and planning to be able to position yourself in the vicinity of respawn locations during the fight, right before you frag your opponent. Also taking the fight to respawn locations is double-edged by its nature, since the loser will have to respawn, and it may not be you.

You seem to be confused as to what skill is. If you don't count frags in ceteris paribus conditions, how can you measure skill? By attacking respawn frags you are not attacking players who take them, you are attacking the character of the game. Doom/Doom2 has been built around respawn frags, otherwise everyone would emerge out of respawns fully armed. Take it or leave it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind an occasional friendly game. Not every game has to be a gruesome fight for a win. However, this conversation needs a frame of reference. I am providing the frame of reference by saying what needs to be done to actually win the game. Winning the game is my stated objective. If a player's goal is to improve his/her skills, he/she has to accept a game objective, like the frag ratio, as a quantitative measure of improvement over time. There is no other way to go about it. Deathmatch is a sport, as is chess. It is ok to play easy games, just as it is ok to let opponents take moves back in chess -- if it is not a competition game. We really are speaking from two different perspectives. I assume in my posts that players want to improve their skills. If that primary assumption is wrong, as it might be for you and some other "casual players" who come online to have fun and take a break from other activities, then, of course, no one can tell you how to play. These posts, one would hope, are of some use to people who are genuinely interested in improving their game. I hereby explicitly equate improving one's game with getting higher frag ratios. In that context, everything that increases your frag ratio is good and is to be sought after.

I have often come away from games I lost, sometimes rather badly, thanking my (good-natured) opponent for the game.

I really do find it strange that you felt it necessary to mention that. You must be under the impression that it is a special virtue to be polite to people online.
If you believe that respawn frags are a way of being impolite (which the only connection to our discussion I can think of), you have to have your head examined.

I would always rather play someone who doesn't care if they win either. (Not to be confused with someone who isn't playing their best.)

In other words, you want your opponents to play their best while at the same time not killing you when you respawn. I don't see these as compatible requirements.
Would you, Risen, still ease up on your opponents and be gracious about losing if you were to play in a deathmatch tournament for prizes? Because that is the future of deathmatch, like it or not. If your answer is yes, this conversation is at its (somewhat inevitable, as I see it) dead end.

Cheers,

Although there are still some places within your reply that are not fully explained or fully developed, and you also misunderstood parts of my post, I believe we can come to no other conclusion but to agree to disagree even if I were to point these out. We've both stated our arguments, I don't think there's anything more to be said.