Tactics Is this a valid tactic?

[Rameusb5]

I've been seeing this "tactic" being used a few times recently, and I'd like to get everyone's opinion on it.


On most maps, there's typically some cap zones that can't be captured until other zones are captured first. For example, on Odessa, the Tower and HQ cannot be capped until the Russians first capture the Apartments and Square.


I've noticed that a few times some of the attackers will "skirt" the battle and head to these uncappable zones and simply wait until the primary zones are capped. They can then capture these areas before the defenders have any chance at all to react.


How do you feel about this?

Personally, I find it a bit annoying on maps where the secondary cap zones are nowhere near the spawn of the defenders. For example, in "snowy forest," the second cap zone is almost on top of the defender's primary spawn area, so if the Russians want to bypass the primary cap zone and camp the second one, they'll still surely encounter resistance.

But on Odessa, the Russian players can EASILY skirt to the right, where no German players would normally be, and simply walk to the HQ without any worries at all. Then, once the apartment and square are capped, they can cap HQ easily before the German players respond.

 

[SilverSheep]

I say yes because it has worked a few times on Odessa but if your team can't capture the square and the apartments you should help out. I like the use of cunning tactics it makes this game more fun.

 

[orangepine]

Ever heard of the phrase "behind enemy lines" ?

Plus the other team must suck bad to let the other team flank them that way.

 

[Dheepan]

It's a good tactic, Tower is a very hard chokepoint for the allies. Also, with those 2 or so guys there at the next cap point they are missing 2 soldiers at the frontlines. So it offers disadvantages. On a map like Lazur the only way the Russians can move from the first cap point is to position themselves in the Ruined office or Train Station early on.

 

[REZ]

Cherry Picking... hmmm

Annoying, very. Invalid tactic, I wouldnt say so.

It sounds like the sort of stuff that goes on in clan matches, as clans that compete use any and every edge to win (aside from blatant cheating). Which is the point, dont get me wrong. However, as a pub star, I find it freaking next to impossible to get people to move onto the first capzone let alone getting them to setup for the next one.

If one or maybe even two guys are able to sneak by to the Headquarters, it might still take them some time to cap it, in which case you still have a chance to get there and stop them. But if a whole slew of em get by and cap it immediately, well then there was a huge hole in your defense somewhere.

Now that we know pubbers are using this tactic... I'll certainly keep my eye out for it.

I'm kind of on the fence between it being the mappers responsibility to make this very hard to do, if that is his/her intention of course, and at the same time because I play pubs, I want people to attack/defend the objectives they are assigned to... so, lol, I didnt vote

 

[Case]

Sure it's a valid tactic. This is like asking "is it valid for an enemy to flank me and attack me from the direction of my own spawn." Just because you don't expect it doesn't mean it's invalid. Denying an opponent the chance to defend an objective and capping it is the whole point of the game.

 

[Rameusb5]

If you read my original post, you'll see that I don't have an issue with it IF the cap zone in question is ALSO accessable to the defenders.

An example would be the MGA map. I've seen several players bypass the Farm entirely to "instacap" the mortars (which are located in the walled courtyard and are, IMHO, one of the most difficult capzones to cap in the entire game).

I guess I just don't feel that it's that "cunning" to sneak around "behind the lines," particularly when it's not actually "behind the lines" but "somewhere else on the map entirely."

On Odessa, it IS preventable, but you have to dedicate a person or two to prevent it.


I guess "avoiding a fight" just seems counter-productive to the concept of a battle, particularly when we're limited to so few players. If we had 64 (or 128!) players on a map, it would be a lot less problematic.

But I can already see from the poll results that my opinion is the minority, which actually suprises me to some degree, because when it actually happens to us on a map, the comments are ususally quite negative.


At least REZ and I agree! That's all that really matters...

 

[panzerknacker]

If I am German on odessa and when it looks like the square is about to fall I am already at the HQ clearing out sneakers. When I am russian nothin is as fun as sneaking around stabbing a jerry in the back and having the hq captured before the defenders can react to the square falling.

 

[Problem]

I find this very funny. Just because you dislike it doesn't mean it's an invaild tactic.

Okay, so let's pull out our dictionary book and read what the word tactic means.

Tactic:
An expedient for achieving a goal; a maneuver.

Let's see. What's the main goal? To win.

 

[Murphy]

Cheating is a tactic too.

Imo the tactic in question is valid, because those "skirting" players are missing in combat so its harder for the rest of the team to cap the first objective in the first place. If they manage to do it anyway, then the extra edge gained from the "skirters" should be justified.

 

[The_Cook]

at least on odessa the germans should be defending that spot you were talking about because if they don't they get spawnraped alot of the time also.

the fun of the game is that it is you and your teams tactics that win you the map. If you aren't covering your flanks you aren't covering your flanks and you'll lose anyways.

 

[Rameusb5]

I find this very funny. Just because you dislike it doesn't mean it's an invaild tactic.

Okay, so let's pull out our dictionary book and read what the word tactic means.

Tactic:
An expedient for achieving a goal; a maneuver.

Let's see. What's the main goal? To win.

So teamkilling to help the enemy is a valid tactic?

I think not.


I guess for me it simpy feels cheap. I think it's borderline exploit, which is why I posed the question to the community. It looks like most players who responded don't feel the same way though, which is somewhat surprising.


You capped an objective without ANY kind of resistance.


It certainly wouldn't be something I would be PROUD of if I were to do it.

 

[chuckie]

Thats funny considering I almost defend on the right side on Odessa with my MP44/STG44 and taking them down one by one.

 

[Theodrake]

It depends on the map. On Odessa the Germans can get to their left flank very fast and see any russkies trying to sneak around. If the axis players are too stupid to counter it, then they get what they deserve. A single Stg44 on the german left flank can usually break up this tactic.

Its the mod maps that don't provide any kind way to defend against this tactic that I hate.

 

[monster]

Welcome to war. The enemy is going to seek advantages, and will use movement to achieve this.

Stop him *in game*, or allow him to succeed.

Everything is legal except hacking.

 

[monster]

Welcome to war. The enemy is going to seek advantages, and will use movement to achieve this.

Stop him *in game*, or allow him to succeed.

Everything is legal except hacking.

You capped an objective without ANY kind of resistance.


It certainly wouldn't be something I would be PROUD of if I were to do it.

The only thing to be less proud of is to ALLOW it.

Beaten only by admitting that one allowed it, and then seeking approval for allowing it.

 

[Genocide Angel]

Well, in my opinion i think it is a valid tactic even though it may be annoying. In war you pretty much do anything to win.

 

[Solo4114]

Welcome to war. The enemy is going to seek advantages, and will use movement to achieve this.

Stop him *in game*, or allow him to succeed.

Everything is legal except hacking.



The only thing to be less proud of is to ALLOW it.

Beaten only by admitting that one allowed it, and then seeking approval for allowing it.

Please. It's a video game, not a war. Personally, I find it silly in the extreme when people bring up issues like this and others puff up their chests and say "It's a WAR!! All's fair in WAR!!" It's not. It's a game. And you're playing with other people for fun, so show a little consideration.

That said, in this case I don't see it as too terribly problematic because that's one less body at the front. Unlike in Forgotten Hope where (often) a single player can capture a flag in 2 seconds, RO requires lots of bodies in the cap zone. Being one or more players down in the cap zone can essentially keep the team from getting it if the other side's playing well.

 

[monster]

Please. It's a video game, not a war. Personally, I find it silly in the extreme when people bring up issues like this and others puff up their chests and say "It's a WAR!! All's fair in WAR!!" It's not. It's a game. And you're playing with other people for fun, so show a little consideration.

That said, in this case I don't see it as too terribly problematic because that's one less body at the front. Unlike in Forgotten Hope where (often) a single player can capture a flag in 2 seconds, RO requires lots of bodies in the cap zone. Being one or more players down in the cap zone can essentially keep the team from getting it if the other side's playing well.

Its a video game about war. Therefore, all is fair except hacking and exploits.

Sorry you don't like my opinion. My opinion won't change. In fact, it will get stronger now that I know you don't like it.

 

[Rameusb5]

Its a video game about war. Therefore, all is fair except hacking and exploits...

Which was why I was asking if you consider it a valid tactic or an exploit. It's clear that you don't feel that this type of capping is an exploit.


And by the way, exploits are HOW you win a war in real life.