Backdooring?
- Thread starter U3BAPuHCKUU*_4yBAK
- Start date
Back-Dooring is good, there should be more than one squad on your team poised to cap multiple objectives.
I am not sure on Dutch-Dooring though... is that when you can high-five your friend at an inappropriate moment?
I am not sure on Dutch-Dooring though... is that when you can high-five your friend at an inappropriate moment?
Upvote
0
I want to address this because it comes up ALL THE FRIGGIN' TIME.
People use the "This is a realism game" to back up a lot of arguments, and not necessarily ones that directly follow.
To my way of thinking, yes, this is "a realism game" in the sense that, for the most part, your avatar will behave realistically, as will the weaponry. This means you can't jump the same height as another player, you can't run for an infinitely long period of time without getting winded, your aim will sway, and there are no crosshairs floating in space in front of you. You also will have to factor in bullet drop, manual bolting, and realistic weapon performance in general.
What it doesn't mean is "Everyone will play the game the way people fought the war." Nor should it. I mean, we simply don't have enough people, nor have we been trained as units, etc.
So, sometimes people will do gamey stuff. I don't personally have a problem with, say, adding minefields to places where you don't want players to go, but forcing people to hang out in a group is a mistake.
Actually, despite its other glaring flaws, one of the best things about BF2 is its squad system. I think if anything, you'd do better to provide RO players with the TOOLS they need to play more realistically, rather than FORCING them to do so. So, if you want folks to play in squads, give them a reason to do so other than "Well, it's more realistic that way."
Upvote
0
IMO,
As annoying as it can be to lose in this manner, backdooring is not that much of a problem for any team that is communicating. Any team with the support of collective situational awareness will quickly discover (at the absolute latest, by the end of the first round--ideally everyone already knows before the game starts that it can happen) that the other team is backdooring and promptly take measures to remedy the weakness in their defense. (Yes, it is a defensive weakness that allows this to happen, not a flaw in the game). If it so happens that you can't seal the gaps that allow this to happen to your team, then your team was simply bested not only in terms of the recon guys who got through and successfully camped the latter obj's, but also in terms of their main force who penetrated the early objectives to allow the campers to begin their captures immediately. In brief: the only necessary restrictions to backdooring should come in the form of one or two good squadmates covering the "back door".
As annoying as it can be to lose in this manner, backdooring is not that much of a problem for any team that is communicating. Any team with the support of collective situational awareness will quickly discover (at the absolute latest, by the end of the first round--ideally everyone already knows before the game starts that it can happen) that the other team is backdooring and promptly take measures to remedy the weakness in their defense. (Yes, it is a defensive weakness that allows this to happen, not a flaw in the game). If it so happens that you can't seal the gaps that allow this to happen to your team, then your team was simply bested not only in terms of the recon guys who got through and successfully camped the latter obj's, but also in terms of their main force who penetrated the early objectives to allow the campers to begin their captures immediately. In brief: the only necessary restrictions to backdooring should come in the form of one or two good squadmates covering the "back door".
Upvote
0
I would be fine with people running off without their squads so long as they randomly got shot down when they got too far in to territory where other entrenched defenders would be located, waiting. Its just silly to pretend that a map like odessa would be sitting there empty except for where the two sides decided to fight. Its rediculous and irritating, espetially when the idiot rambo is on your team and it might be nice to have someone else actually giving support. IRL the commisar would shoot the ***** that ran off like that for being a coward and/or dumbass.
Upvote
0
In real life, we'd all be dead already because the first time we fired up the game and got killed, that'd be that.
But yes, I see your point on the "but prepared defenders would be waiting". That's more a matter for the map designers to address, though. There's a counter argument that, "Well, what about when those areas become capturable? Shouldn't there be defenders there too?", but that's all beside the point.
Basically, this problem is easily solved by mappers (if it is indeed a problem). Simply add the minefields where you don't want people going. If there are no minefields, accept that it's possible and tighten up defense.
But yes, I see your point on the "but prepared defenders would be waiting". That's more a matter for the map designers to address, though. There's a counter argument that, "Well, what about when those areas become capturable? Shouldn't there be defenders there too?", but that's all beside the point.
Basically, this problem is easily solved by mappers (if it is indeed a problem). Simply add the minefields where you don't want people going. If there are no minefields, accept that it's possible and tighten up defense.
Upvote
0
![Dumba [cro]](/data/avatars/s/5/5293.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
There is nothing wrong with it, up to defending team to stop this "Tactic" and that is what it is. In order to stop this you have to be organised and work as a team and this is what RO is all about, so it can only be a good thing surely. Just my opinion.
Upvote
0
In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes they made with BF2 was the way the squad system worked. They SHOULD force everyone to join a squad and answer to a leader. Then if you get a leader who has some tactical sense, he can actually do some good in getting everyone in his squad in the right place at the right time. To me, this "join a squad or don't" crap just shows the developers have no spine to make a decision and stick to it. Adding a squad system could have potentially made massive improvements to the gameplay, but then they worried what casual players would think and made it optional. For Christ's sake, if you join a real armed force they won't let you just play lone wolf.
So for RO, if they make a squad system they damn well had better make it mandatory and provide the tools to make it effective. In the mean time, I will play for my own personal score and personal bragging rights. It's only natural.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
What do you think about situations, when someone going to objective that cannot be captured right now to have advantage when it will be aviable.
For example, at Odessa:
Someone going to HQ or Tower, and wait, when it will be aviable, so he can easily capture it without any fight (all axis are near grecheskaya sqr at this time)
Its break realism in real life, there should be defending soldiers but, due to game limitations (player limit) player can run to this place.
My opinion, these places should be protected. If someone entered location around unaviable capzone, he should be killed (not by magically appeared mine, maybe by magically bullet from nowhere
Same for non-recapturable objectives. It has no sence, HQ / Tower (Odessa) already capped but these continuse fights.
Another example, Tula Outskirts (custom map) What is point of capturing bunkers if enemy can easily re-enter it and continue defending.
Backdooring...sounds like good strategy to me. Tactics, thinking, forethought, teamwork. It's a good thing.
Upvote
0
So if there would be, say, anonymous sniper fire, then it'd stop being a realistic tactic (cause you'd die) in the game.
Anyway, I don't really see a best-of-both-worlds solution here. I think capping the HQ in Odessa with backdooring really spoils the round, but the solutions suggested here are even worse. Anyway, if you glance at the map once in a while, you should be able to rush reinforcements to the HQ in time to prevent the backdoor cap.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Force squads? Um, no. Plus, how would they decide who's the leader? That sounds needlessly complicated to me. I don't want to "follow orders" from some jackass who doesn't have a clue. If I'm not FORCED to be in his squad and FORCED to follow his orders, so much the better. If I CHOOSE to be in someone's squad, though, there should be mechanisms to support it.
Upvote
0
See another thread - "How to make teamwork by Jono" for my arguments against squad systems.
Solo, we see eye to eye here.
Solo, we see eye to eye here.
Upvote
0
the arguement on whether or not a given map should allow backdoor capping is one that the mapper has to deal with. It's not something that needs to be decided on a game-wide scale.
As Odessa is the main map being discussed with this problem, I will assure you that it was thoroughly tested before release, and I myself am very confident it is balanced. What it comes down to, really, is that if the attacking team wants to sacrifice an attacker or 2 to send them on a flanking mission, the defence should be able to hold the initial objectives more easily, and essentially negate the advantage of having a capper in the zone as it becomes active.
On the whole though, I'd vote for more options for the mappers, but fewer restrictions on what they are forced to do.
As Odessa is the main map being discussed with this problem, I will assure you that it was thoroughly tested before release, and I myself am very confident it is balanced. What it comes down to, really, is that if the attacking team wants to sacrifice an attacker or 2 to send them on a flanking mission, the defence should be able to hold the initial objectives more easily, and essentially negate the advantage of having a capper in the zone as it becomes active.
On the whole though, I'd vote for more options for the mappers, but fewer restrictions on what they are forced to do.
Upvote
0
I will admit that the best counter strat for the defending team is to get the whole team into the capzones and not have idiots on the team. This works fine in clanwars, but sadly not so well in pubs where people dont check their maps to see what needs help and just go run off willynilly to shoot their rifles at people.
Upvote
0
You have to have a little imagination, Solo. Yeah, most of the squad leaders are idiots, but that doesn't always have to be the case. A game that divided up the troops in to platoons and squads and fire teams could, theoretically at least, have enough good sense to only allow qualified players to serve as leaders.
[rant]
This is the kind of attitude that bugs me in gaming. It has become so stagnant because everyone wants to come up with neat ideas, but no one wants to create solid, working gameplay systems from them. It's as if every game has a feature list of unrelated squiggles of code which the developers program in and check off one by one, without thinking about how they work together. A new game comes out with Feature X which is heavily advertised and becomes the game's selling point, but then it's so half-assed and useless that players start thinking that they'll never buy another game with Feature X in it, just because whoever did it first didn't do it right. It's so maddening to play a new game and realize that despite all the work put in to it, it could have been so much better if the stupid developers would have not just thought through the game as a whole rather than selling it as a list of features.
Anyway...
[/rant]
Upvote
0
This is an area were BF2 got it somewhat right. The ranking system gives priority to people applying for commander who have more experience/rank.
Upvote
0
That's basically all that needs to be said (and understood). I don't "get" all this endless complaining about what tactics people want to use. Any area that isn't a minefield is fair game at anytime to me. "Hey guys can you wait till you capture this spot first before you try any crazy 'planning ahead type stuff' Thanks". "Let's conduct this battle in an orderly highly predictable fashion please." "Code of honor, no nades, no hipshooting". I've never seen a tactic that can't be countered but it's up to the player if he wants to continue operating in the same rigid mode and losing or adapt his tactics fluidly.
Upvote
0
Definitely not. We need to have strategic options.
I can see backdooring a problem only on public servers where people can't expect it - or where half the team doesn't even care to check the map.
However, it could be nice to have a small warning sign on the objective to show that there are enemies there, even if it's not yet being capped, so the defenders can react to it more easily without having to try and cover the entire map with just 16 players.
I can see backdooring a problem only on public servers where people can't expect it - or where half the team doesn't even care to check the map.
However, it could be nice to have a small warning sign on the objective to show that there are enemies there, even if it's not yet being capped, so the defenders can react to it more easily without having to try and cover the entire map with just 16 players.
Upvote
0