Talk:Kill stealing

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 January 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This page was proposed for deletion by Zxcvbnm (talk · contribs) on 21 January 2010.
It was contested by Jclemens (talk · contribs) on 28 January 2010

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Vette (Star Wars) (2 participants)
International Hobo (1 participant)
Wally Scharold (3 participants)
Cake Mania (series) (1 participant)
Omocat (5 participants)
Fortnite Chapter 5 Season 2: Myths and Mortals (9 participants)
Rick Jay Glen (5 participants; relisted)
Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (17 participants; relisted)
Atlus USA (15 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

POV[edit]

"Many players feel that this is dishonorable." is biased, as #1, it assumes that the players know what honor is, #2, it is most likely a glittering generality, and #3, it strengthens a particular position in the reader's mind by putting forth that particular position though the position does not have statistical or otherwise factual backing. (It's an opinion.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.86.107 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 March 2006

Why does this article focus so much on mmorpgs? I hear just as much complaining in a LAN of Counter-Strike or while playing Super Smash Bros. on the Gamecube. I think this article needs to be adjusted a bit.Preeeemo 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing the examples[edit]

I won't try to rewrite this article myself since I know very little about online gaming, but it seems to me that the section on "Preventing kill stealing" should be organized by method-- experience granted proportionally, separate instances of monsters, outsiders forbidden from joining fights, etc-- with the game titles given as examples of each method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottAlanHill (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article feels like a complaint[edit]

Too much POV going on here. It sounds like it was written by someone who just had a kill stolen from them. (Albert Mond (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I would agree. The article could use expansion to feel worthy of an article instead of a whine fest. Kill stealing is a legitimate means of getting a carry, who does not have the means of acquiring a kill by themselves just yet, ahead of the game much earlier and is encouraged by the team. The carry doesn't do all or any of the work, but the supporting players agree to allow them to "steal" it to win the game easier.

This article is very biased. Kill stealing itself is very often used as a complaint ingame and it is nearly always open to debate in a sense that not everyone considers it a certain situation a kill steal. Kill stealing is something very subjective and for an article of that lenght there are not that many references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.245.14 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Kill stealing as in actively "griefing" other players by saving powerful abilities to finish can be done to sabotage the game, but it's rare. Most of the complaints about "kill stealing" is seen in lower levels of online competitive play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanksteg (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's in this source?[edit]

Could someone check what Communities in Cyberspace actually says about kill stealing? The current line, "Many players feel that kill stealing is a dishonorable practice," looks quite odd. Could this be reworded? Also, how did the book get this conclusion? It's off course rather obvious, but it's still a "mass opinion" we're dealing with. ~Mable (chat) 20:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]