Big Thread no 12345: map control, spam and infantry/atgs

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[smurfORnot]

+1 on Smokaz

[Smokaz]

Well I dont argue hardcaps, always been against those, what I think is that the game is overly skewed towards using mass infantry. It can be tricky to understand the "Win through lose" mechanic that the inf spam super hero enjoys, but its definitely there. As much as it's correct that the map control matters more later on, a huge significant decision of EIRR company-making is how defensive or offensive your company is. The better suited you are to holding and pushing for middle the more important it becomes what kind of map control situation that you get inserted into, so allowing everything to slip severely early on sets you up in a increasingly desperate situation.

Also if you review original post, it's very hard to ignore the many inbuilt advantages through leadership, rapid healing and recrewing and picking up weapons that infantry have over tanks. They also have a much more meaningful and powerful cover system, and can benefit from smoke.

Making cloaked units hold territory but one man squads not would be a bit contradictory. Both result in you having to hunt something that's not even fighting for control of a sector down, in order to capture that sector. I don't think making cloaked squads hold territory in itself is too bad of an idea though.

By the very definition of player action and the EIRR capping system, being in a sector is fighting for it.

[cloud234]

if you guys had a nebel or a hummel, you wouldn't have made a post about how running mass rifles and atgs is op.

I hate to say this Smokaz, but he is actually right. We simply needed indirect fire. I think it would be better if you made artillery cheaper or lower in pop and maybe introduce "airburst" rounds... or even introduce "Time on Target" / "Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact" (Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery#MRSI). In order to balance it, probably allow only 3 shots and to have a longer delay between firing and hitting.

I think you guys should try giving Artillery warfare more room to develop.

Aside from that...

The large part of their tactic being effective was being able to "blob" together for maximum firepower.

If you re-watch the replay again, we won the earlier engagements because we still had offmaps to "off" their blobbages and promptly over run their position.

Subsequently, we ran out of offmaps and I cannot outsnipe their snipers, hence their weapon support teams could stay put.

I think EiRR is quite close to a working system now to be honest, in terms of hard caps vs soft caps.

[BigDick]

Generally sucide play should be punished in EIRR. Right now there's no punishment for playing like a Tyrant and just suciding all your guys for map control.

Finally, the lack of care for losing units need to be struck down on. The aim of winning should not be rewarded by sucidal play.

Smokaz the vet whore, i'm very disappointed.
Actually to loose units to win a game should be rewarded and not the way around.
Keeping vet = getting a stronger Company in trade of earlier retreats.
To sit the not risking units leads into campy vet whoring play.
I would change the system to give the winning side for each lost unit in a battle a special amount of xp for the remaining units.

[skaffa]

I actually thought u were a fan of mass capping and didnt care about the attrition war, thats what you said when I started in EIR, while I had the exact opposite idea of playing.

I envision EIRR games where attrition and the actual exchange of planned and determined companies go up against each other. The game has become too vulnerable to companies which dont care about how many infantry squads they lose and just keep calling on ATG's and sucide units. Generally sucide play should be punished in EIRR. Right now there's no punishment for playing like a Tyrant and just suciding all your guys for map control.

Indeed. I always play the attrition game, and thats what Im good at, that is also why I like EIR.
I can keep my units alive entire games.
I never throw away units.
I always plan my attacks and use specific units to counter theirs.
So I usually outplay the opponents, killing a lot but losing only a few units.

Only problem I encounter is when people start spamming suicide rifles so much and just keep rushing my line, push me back a little bit (if I want to stay alive I need to kite/pull back/repair/dodge stickies/axis good at long range), and prevent me from capping my sectors back because they are non-stop attacking me with useless rifles, which can cap and I need to kill them before I can cap.
I then proceed to lose by territory cap, while raping the enemies companies the entire game.
Pretty much every game I've lost is like this, I am raping the enemy big time kpd wise, but they have the sectors and only win because the timer runs out.

I cant cap the sectors I need back, because axis isnt the best at attacking/rushing straight in as we all know, so it takes time to succesfully attack something playing as axis. (except if you play with PE IST, also a weapon to just rush in, kill mass amount of units, keeping it alive it not needed at all, it doesnt need any good micro or skill and I think thats exactly what should decide the outcome of a battle, plus its not that easy to take out when its in the middle of your lines raping)

Also the allies, usually US, keeps rushing in the rifles non-stop, attacking being the best defensive is a good example here, they dont care if they die, all they want is to keep the axis busy, prevent it from attacking/capping, and hold the sectors.
Persistency mod, I like to keep my units alive, play attrition game, vet up my units, but the opponent plays the exact opposite game, mass vet 0 useless units, mass suicide. This leads to games where I or my team are the better players with better kpds and skill, but losing the game due to this spam/rush cap tactic, not my imagination of what I would like EIR to be, and I cant recognise any form of persistency whatsoever in this playstyle.

So the only problem is, for me, when they push you back to spawn and you cant cap anything back, timer runs out and you lose, they win by noob suicide spam while getting owned entire game.
If the fight stays at the  middle of the map, with 50% map control, I have no problem with these spam tactics, I can easily rape them and outplay them by killing a lot without losing much myself, win by skill.

[smurfORnot]

I would change the system to give the winning side for each lost unit in a battle a special amount of xp for the remaining units.

except allies will have more looses since they have more units and will naturally loose more units,oposed to axis who are more 'elite' army,with smaller unit sizes ,more expensive units...

[deadbolt]

seanconnery. Please... please... play a game vs an ATG+rifle spammer. its ridiculous becuase the atgs with ap rounds insta gib almost anything while all the rifles run map control and run over any of yer inf with bar supression and whatnot. it is ridiculous and OP dont bitch, everyone has lost against it before and even allies themseflves admit it to being stupid. The reason its soo common is becuase its soo easy. its hard to build a company that works with itself, and supports and has an actually strategy incorperated into it. not simply throwing whatever you go at the enemy beuase "Hey ive got 46 more rifles left anyways".

Well said Smokaz
-8th

i've not lost vs it, cos i am to many prozzz.

[Artekas]

Calling yourself more skilled because you have a higher KDR as Axis is absolutely ridiculous in CoH. If they won, generally speaking this means they outplayed you in one fashion or another. Calling a tactic a noob tactic because you don't like it and it beats you doesn't actually mean it's a nooby thing to do, in fact that means it's one of the smartest things to do if you're trying to win.

Personally I've never seen this mass suicide rifle rush, how about a replay of it?

[Smokaz]

i've not lost vs it, cos i am to many prozzz.

you are classic keeps, remember that 3v3 on schindel we had very recently? it was going downhill even though you and skaffa were managing your armor just fine.. only once I started deploying full pop of sucide blobs to help with the map control, did the game swing around to our favor. the builds while solid combat wise, were just too weak in terms of map control. what did the other side have? mainly inf.. and at guns.

anyways you're still my favorite troll TB

I actually thought u were a fan of mass capping and didnt care about the attrition war, thats what you said when I started in EIR, while I had the exact opposite idea of playing.

Im a fan of both sucide, and mass capping. In the correct order of course. But what I'm discussing here is exactly what you talk about, that you can play very well and absolutely murder the opponent but lose the capping game because there are such advantages tied having capping supremacy. I dont think its good for persistent EIRR gameplay that so much focus ends up being the map control. Map control while obviously a neccessary component shouldn't be the sole territory of sucide companie's and downright spam. And it should definitely not be like it is currently that you are forced into the same builds as your opponent to compete.

Smokaz the vet whore, i'm very disappointed.
Actually to loose units to win a game should be rewarded and not the way around.
Keeping vet = getting a stronger Company in trade of earlier retreats.
To sit the not risking units leads into campy vet whoring play.
I would change the system to give the winning side for each lost unit in a battle a special amount of xp for the remaining units

Losing units is not rewarded in EIRR. Keeping them alive is. The problem is gameplay when "winning" the game is so dependant on running a map control type of company. It funnels the play into very narrow experiences.

[deadbolt]

we were noobing around at i dont what time of night and i was drinking, it wasnt a difficult game by any stretch- and not a build order i thought twice about or considered to be overwhelmingly strong. also i'm sure you're the one a few weeks ago who said this game is too vehichle/tank based and to reduce fuel. if anythin i'm all for this idea cos it's the only way to deal with the never ending stream of axis heavy tanks that seem to dominate the playing field.

[Artekas]

Are you talking about that replay he posted while saying that? That was sarcasm. 

Note to self: never use sarcasm here, no matter how obvious it is

[Smokaz]

neverending stream of dominating axis armor? lulz

[skaffa]

@Artekas.
If you havent even seen it then perhaps stop acting like u know what ur talking about.

What I mean is that I lose hardly anything, while killing everything they throw at me, the entire game. I do that by outplaying/outmicroing them, keeping my shit alive, yet they only win because of the mass sector cap. I explained if they dont have that sector cap its no problem.

A noob tactic is something that doesnt need much skill to do, as in keep rushing in, suicide etc. Compare with 3x M8 starts or P4 IST rushes.
Perhaps read my post again, you obviously didnt understand it.

[Artekas]

I read your post fine, and you think that you outplayed your opponent, yet you lost. Your opponent may have used less micro, but he still beat you by taking advantage of one of the aspects of EiR. That's called outplaying you. Micro is not the only thing involved in outplaying someone, your strategy is also important because, after all, it is an RTS.

Edit: And I've seen plenty of infantry spam, suicide rushes, etc, just none that pushes me off the map as described. Usually when people do it they have a slight territory advantage and then are annihilated at 25 minutes.

[skaffa]

So you think that in an RTS using some OP strat is called outplaying ?
In vcoh for example using OP shit doesnt make u a better player even if u win. For example, you rape some1 the entire game, but then comes the strafe and he strafes all your units. You outplayed him and are obviously better, but the noob tactic made him win. Then the win is defined by that and not by skill, point of my post.

[BigDick]

So you think that in an RTS using some OP strat is called outplaying ?

Actually that is the only strategy in EiR. Finding some OP doctrine choices and company builds and abusing them.
What you call micro and attrition warfare has nothing to do with a strategy game, that is the action part. In FPS i would call it aim.

[Artekas]

Just because you think it is OP does not make it automatically OP. You say it like it's a given that infantry spam is OP, but it's not. Besides that... yes, if you use the best strategy around and your opponent doesn't because of some kind of dislike for the tactic, you did better in that regard. A player playing to win using the strategy that gives him the best chance to win is a smart thing to do, regardless of whether it's OP or not. By making the choice of using the best possible strategy, while you pick a weaker strategy, he is playing better than you, regardless of whether or not it takes more micro to ply the strategy out.

It's also worth pointing out that strafe is a tactic as well. You may have been kicking his ass earlier on in the game simply because he WAS going for strafe - for example, if he hadn't gone for strafe he would have had 150 munitions to use on other things, which may have affected your chance of kicking his ass. However, he decided to have a weaker infantry force and thus lose earlier battles with the intention of coming back later on. Don't assume that without strafe you would have automatically won, because, for example, instead of strafe you could have had to deal with three flamethrower squads in addition to his rifles.

[skaffa]

@Artekas-

'-Just because you think it is OP does not make it automatically OP. You say it like it's a given that infantry spam is OP, but it's not.'

I didnt say that this spam tactic is OP, you should read my posts a bit better, I have clearly explained my view and my experience ingame of this subject.
I posted that so the devs can read something more than '+1 Smokaz' and perhaps better understand the problem and maybe even relate to it. I narrowed it down from the mass inf + atg is bad to only bad if they are able to mass cap leading to a loss due to to few sectors, as that is my experience. I could repeat myself or you could just read better.

'-Besides that... yes, if you use the best strategy around and your opponent doesn't because of some kind of dislike for the tactic, you did better in that regard.'

The discussed playstyle/tactic of suiciding mass rifles to win by cap is only really viable for Allies, specially US, so when playing vs them its hard to use it, isnt it.
Furthermore you basically saying you disagree with all the people who agreed with the opening post. No1 seems to like this playstyle, doing it yourself would not solve anything, 2 wrongs dont make a right.

'-A player playing to win using the strategy that gives him the best chance to win is a smart thing to do, regardless of whether it's OP or not.'

Ok this is just where I disagree to the fullest.
99% of the CoH community doesnt like people using OP shit, but if you think using for example Roos is cool then ok, lol.
I dont see this as smart, this is the easy way to try to win, a person using OP strats lacks the skill and moral to use normal builds.
You cant outplay an opponent so you resort to the most abusive, OP, easiest way of playing. People are to dumb to be able to think for themselves, think how to play, think how to micro, think where to put units, think what to expect, think about a good attack, all of that is lacking so players resort to OP strats and I win button/units. You say its smart of them to use it, I say its the lack of intelligence and skill that makes them use it.

'-By making the choice of using the best possible strategy, while you pick a weaker strategy, he is playing better than you, regardless of whether or not it takes more micro to ply the strategy out.'

You define being a better player by picking the best possible strategy/ the most easy/OP strategy, I would define it by who has the best micro and can win using the weakest strategy.
I have personally always played the most underpowerd faction/strat and won vs everyone, including people who used OP/unbalanced shit. If you win with the weakest strat you can win with everything, if you can only win with the most OP strat then you are not a better player as you say.


'-story about strafe..'

You really have no clue, do you.
I have played in 1.7 I think it was and owned everyone in 1v1, the only thing stopping me was a Strafe, it was regarded as OP by the entire community aswell as Relic. If people didnt use the Strafe they wouldnt stand a chance, even with using strafes I still managed to win plenty, because my micro is better in every battle, except for the moments a Strafe was used. The strafe was OP because you CANT dodge it, you CANT use micro to get away from it, you couldnt do anything about it.
All it did was wipe couple of your squads of the field in a second.
If they instead used 3 flamethrowers my micro would have owned that easily, better players have (imo) better micro etc. It takes somewhat of a skill to be able to attack succesfully with flamers and infantry, a strafe however does not need any skill, its noob easy and OP. It is an unbalance which allows people to do better while without it they wouldnt stand a chance.

We also have another example, the 7 CP pershing compared to 8 CP Tiger.
I have played many games where I was winning, map control and everything, or in even games, but then the 7 CP pershing comes on the field, before the Tiger, and rapes all your shit.
It wasnt balanced and only because of the 7 CPs people were able to hold out longer or sometimes win. This is not smart or skill, it is unbalanced and only abusing things like that can help them.

All your saying is using OP strat is good, well, I disagree to the fullest and I believe a lot of the CoH players aswell. You are one of the few that actually thinks using OP things are fine and can determen a persons skill, saying people using OP stuff are better players, which I think is pretty funny.

Perhaps get back on topic, or stay out of this thread if you have nothing usefull to add, as you said yourself, you havent experienced it ingame.

[11on2d6]

I agree with the OP.

It would be interesting to see some blanket buff for tanks vs infantry, most of the medium tanks could probably do with some sort of buff, to make them more effective vs infantry, I say buff rather than price decrease because having a unit perform well due to good use should be more satisfying to everyone rather than just field 2x as many of said unit.

[Artekas]

Again, I'm reading what you're saying. You brought up something OP as an example of why you think using something OP doesn't make you a better player. It's reasonable to assume that you think infantry spam is OP, without you directly saying so, given that you say strafe is op and someone beating you with it doesn't make them a better player than you, and you say that someone beating you with infantry rushing doesn't make them a better play than you.

I feel that this is an appropriate response to the rest of your post, about 99% of CoH players intentionally limiting themselves.

Introducing...the Scrub

In the world of Street Fighter competition, there is a word for players who aren't good: "scrub." Everyone begins as a scrub---it takes time to learn the game to get to a point where you know what you're doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or "learn" the game, that one can become a top player. In reality, the "scrub" has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He's lost the game before he's chosen his character. He's lost the game even before the decision of which game is to be played has been made. His problem? He does not play to win.

The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevent him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. In Street Fighter, for example, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations "cheap." So-called "cheapness" is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone often called cheap.

Not everything here translates exactly into CoH, but basically speaking you are a bad player if you limit yourself to things that you consider fair. A player who doesn't limit himself and can win against this kind of player is better than the player who limits himself and considers himself better because his fair tactic requires more micro.

Also, you are not the authority on what this thread is about. This thread has multiple subjects, not just infantry suicide rushes. And again, I have faced some infantry spam and suicide rushing, and it was never as dramatically effective as proposed in the thread. Maybe I just played against bad players using it... it doesn't really matter though, I am allowed to contribute my opinion just like everyone else, whether or not you disagree with it.