Jump to content
Socrates

Rushing - The Game Changer

Recommended Posts

From what Ive seen, the discussion isnt so much about whether rushing is overpowered, or whether it can be effectively countered or not. The question is whether the game is in a place where players enjoy the meta of the game.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did enjoy the rush tactic for a bit but, it's gotten a bit silly at this point, seeing as the majority of fights carries out like that. Not saying it should be taken out or anything, just that it'd be great if it weren't the only way fights turn out. Besides, with the current logistical system, it's heavily encouraged due to infinite respawns and few limitations or penalties. Resource management needs to be more than just a means to an end, but, that's probably another topic.

Nevertheless, randomization of control points or areas, coupled with a fog-of-war, where each CP is discovered either by adjacency or by visual confirmation, could go a long way to make fights more uncertain and ambiguous and, thus, demanding a higher situational awareness, more communication, and a wider space of strategical thinking rather than a memorization and refinement of one single pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Planetgong said:

I don't get it. Why trying to change vehicle spawn, delay of rallies, forbidding this tactic on servers etc, etc when the mistake is not in the game mechanics, but by the players themselves. As@EKzyis mentioned 3 days ago: just think about the fact you could be rushed by the enemy, when the game starts and prepare your team for it. Get a full squad for the first flag, so it won't be easy for the enemy to rush you.

 

Preach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Planetgong said:

I don't get it. Why trying to change vehicle spawn, delay of rallies, forbidding this tactic on servers etc, etc when the mistake is not in the game mechanics, but by the players themselves. As@EKzyis mentioned 3 days ago: just think about the fact you could be rushed by the enemy, when the game starts and prepare your team for it. Get a full squad for the first flag, so it won't be easy for the enemy to rush you.

 

No, that's not the problem. Most times, both teams rush. The problem is that rushing is by far the superior strategy, so that's what the gameplay becomes. Not trying to rush is generally a guaranteed loss because you cede the momentum to the rushing team, and they usually end up holding a majority of the flags. This forces you on the offense, attacking one objective and having to defend one objective, while the enemy team can choose to either defend only or go on the offense as well. You have a couple of potential outcomes:

 

1. One team rushes, blocks enemy cap, eventually wins the game.

2. Both teams rush, both teams blocked. Slow grind to the end.

3. Both teams rush, one rush succeeds, the other doesn't, the team with the successful rush eventually wins.

4. Both teams rush, both fail, usually ends up being a grind on the center flag(s).

5. Neither team rushes, usully a grind on the central flag(s).

6. One team rushes, rush fails, usually a grind on the central flag(s).

 

The game gets boring and repetitive. Fighting over the same flags, in the same order, with the same FOB locations, the same squad deployments, the same everything. If a rush succeeds, it's extremely boring gameplay for at least one team, and if there's no rush, it's just a grind on the central flag(s). So many aspects are watered down or completely eliminated because of the AAS game mode. 

 

You can't fix the players, you can only design the game so that the players play the "right" way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lutz_Persn said:

I did enjoy the rush tactic for a bit but, it's gotten a bit silly at this point, seeing as the majority of fights carries out like that. Not saying it should be taken out or anything, just that it'd be great if it weren't the only way fights turn out. Besides, with the current logistical system, it's heavily encouraged due to infinite respawns and few limitations or penalties. Resource management needs to be more than just a means to an end, but, that's probably another topic.

Nevertheless, randomization of control points or areas, coupled with a fog-of-war, where each CP is discovered either by adjacency or by visual confirmation, could go a long way to make fights more uncertain and ambiguous and, thus, demanding a higher situational awareness, more communication, and a wider space of strategical thinking rather than a memorization and refinement of one single pattern.

 

+1

 

So often I see one side get delayed in main for 30 seconds, get to the midline cap, get wrecked by the other team which got there 30 seconds earlier with a logi and that is enough for them to gain the upper hand and roll the slower team up like a carpet. 

 

You could still have AAS as a layer and discourage rushing as the primary strategy if randomly spawned caps only got unlocked one at a time and you only saw the ones you owned, plus the next one. If you were the US and you took storage, you'd then see castle for example. I'd rather see fighting occurring over a fluid front line with 2 caps in play than squads scattered over the map trying to backcap or dropping fobs everywhere. 

 

Since rushing blindly into enemy territory would be riskier, it would be less used, if you made the ticket loss for fobs higher, they'd be more likely dropped in friendly territory instead of outside the enemy main. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

No, that's not the problem. Most times, both teams rush. The problem is that rushing is by far the superior strategy, so that's what the gameplay becomes. Not trying to rush is generally a guaranteed loss because you cede the momentum to the rushing team, and they usually end up holding a majority of the flags. This forces you on the offense, attacking one objective and having to defend one objective, while the enemy team can choose to either defend only or go on the offense as well. You have a couple of potential outcomes:

 

1. One team rushes, blocks enemy cap, eventually wins the game.

2. Both teams rush, both teams blocked. Slow grind to the end.

3. Both teams rush, one rush succeeds, the other doesn't, the team with the successful rush eventually wins.

4. Both teams rush, both fail, usually ends up being a grind on the center flag(s).

5. Neither team rushes, usully a grind on the central flag(s).

6. One team rushes, rush fails, usually a grind on the central flag(s).

 

The game gets boring and repetitive. Fighting over the same flags, in the same order, with the same FOB locations, the same squad deployments, the same everything. If a rush succeeds, it's extremely boring gameplay for at least one team, and if there's no rush, it's just a grind on the central flag(s). So many aspects are watered down or completely eliminated because of the AAS game mode. 

 

You can't fix the players, you can only design the game so that the players play the "right" way.


Ok. So when AAS us too linear, all these arguments lead towards the conquest mode, where you have to expect enemy contact at everytime at any point on the map.
But nobody wanted to play this, as it is played like battlefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Planetgong said:


Ok. So when AAS us too linear, all these arguments lead towards the conquest mode, where you have to expect enemy contact at everytime at any point on the map.
But nobody wanted to play this, as it is played like battlefield.

 

Conquest plays great, and it doesn't play like Battlefield. People are just too used to AAS to make the mental shift sometimes. Teams that rush, focus on flags, and don't establish a strong frontline get overrun. Teams that focus on area control, frontlines, recon, and maneuverability always win. Players don't have time to adjust or learn a new playstyle when they're only exposed to it once in a while. 

 

The devs should just remove all the AAS layers for an update and only have Conquest layers with tons of flags, you'd see gameplay improve significantly. Probably have to nerf the FOBs/RPs first.

 

My personal preference is an adjacency-based capping game mode, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

....The devs should just remove all the AAS layers for an update and only Conquest layers with tons of flags....

That would be great! Especially when every team has the possibility to choose 2 spawnpoints out of 10 at the beginning of the match, e.g. by voting.
So u can't even expect a direction, where the enemy has to come from

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Planetgong said:


That would be great! Especially when every team has the possibility to choose 2 spawnpoints out of 10 at the beginning of the match, e.g. by voting.
So u can't even expect a direction, where the enemy has to come fromemoji6.png

 

IronTaxi was actually talking about something pretty much like that previously in this thread:

 

On 2/20/2017 at 5:46 AM, IrOnTaXi said:

I have a long time dream for an open random start game mode on Kohat I just havent had the time to finish it.. It started! 

 

essentially each team would GENERALLY start opposite each other (within a large arc) and they have no main base. FIrst order of business is to establish a base wherever they want then capture objectives which would be conquest style caps and could supply weapons, vehicles and/or supplies. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tartantycowhat are your thoughts on how the rally/FOBs should be changed?

I feel like something should be done to encourage more of a "wave-based" attacks, rather than anyone being able to spawn in on ninja rallies alone, at any point of time. Too much "trickling in" of players attacking, you never get the feeling that you truly wiped out the attack. Would be nice if when you destroyed an enemy pushing your flag (especially sinced you had scouted him out beforehand), there would now be some silence around you, untill the enemy prepares a new wave of attack. It would also open a clear timing for you to make some kind of advance yourself, if you so wish.

I think it was KCIV who described the current gameplay as "attrition warfare": people just keep trickling in, throwing themselves into the fight untill one side caps the flag. I guess my wish is that battles were more in "waves", as in my squad pushing a flag as wave, and every squad member staying alive matters. You scout out the area, making a guess at how many enemies there are around, execute the attack. For every squad member you lose, you squad should "feel it", we should suffer. I dont think we really feel it when he can just respawn on a close-by rally within a minute and just trickle into the combat again. Rather, he should be "eliminated" for the duration of that wave-attack, and now the Squad suffers as a whole because of that. We want our medics to do everything they can to get him up. If we manage to kill the enemy squad defending the flag and the area around , then the flag should be ours, we deserve it. But thats not the case as FOBS can just spawn in bunch more enemies the moment the enemy team knows we are attacking the flag.. it just turns things into attrition warfare, and there is never the clear satisfaction that we just won the engamenet between two opposing squads.

In the current meta, that kind of "micro" teamwork and gameplay gets a bit lost in favour of the "macro", where basically it becomes about who can put enough people on the right place as fast as possible. I mean.. macro is fine.. logistical systems and supply truck and all that is all fun.. but the micro teamplay within a squad is what drew me to the game. Its what made other online shooters great. Say what you want about games like CS:GO, but there is a level of intensity and micro-teamwork in that game that you wont find to the same extent in Squad currently. The feeling that your squad suffers as a whole if you die, if you are slow to rotate, if you dont do your job properly, if you dont cover the correct angle at the right time, if you dont push the enemy at the right time, etc etc etc, I wish this was more emphasised in Squad than it is now. Maybe it would help if things were a bit more wave-based and not attrition-like (through adjusting FOBS/rallies somehow), maybe it would help if dying meant you are "out" until that particular wave of attack is over (or until medic gets you), and maybe it would help if it wasnt possible to spawn your whole team on a FOB which basically muddies up lots of what couldve been great squad vs squad battles over a flag.


I dont know, im sure my suggestions arent the nearly close to the solutions. Sorry for the rant, and dont get me wrong, I think the devs have done a fantastic job with the game so far, I think my hours ingame can attest to that. I feel like they have made many brilliant gameplay decisions, and the game both looks and feels nice.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@plissken I have a thread detailing how I think the logistical system should work here:

 

Basically, everything should originate at the Main Base in some form. FOBs and RPs should require and consume resources for spawning. Building emplacements should require resources. Rearming and repairing vehicles outside of main should require resources. Same goes for rearming infantry. The physical transportation is paramount. With it you get structured frontlines, spawn patterns that make sense based on the deployment of forces, more conservative FOB placement, and a vast array of strategic and tactical implications(Targeting supply lines, etc.).

 

From what the devs have been saying, something like my suggestion is what will be implemented. A PR-style Rally Point was one of the options being entertained(Timed, long recharge).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tartantyco said:

 

No, that's not the problem. Most times, both teams rush. The problem is that rushing is by far the superior strategy, so that's what the gameplay becomes. Not trying to rush is generally a guaranteed loss because you cede the momentum to the rushing team, and they usually end up holding a majority of the flags. This forces you on the offense, attacking one objective and having to defend one objective, while the enemy team can choose to either defend only or go on the offense as well. You have a couple of potential outcomes:

 

1. One team rushes, blocks enemy cap, eventually wins the game.

2. Both teams rush, both teams blocked. Slow grind to the end.

3. Both teams rush, one rush succeeds, the other doesn't, the team with the successful rush eventually wins.

4. Both teams rush, both fail, usually ends up being a grind on the center flag(s).

5. Neither team rushes, usully a grind on the central flag(s).

6. One team rushes, rush fails, usually a grind on the central flag(s).

 

The game gets boring and repetitive. Fighting over the same flags, in the same order, with the same FOB locations, the same squad deployments, the same everything. If a rush succeeds, it's extremely boring gameplay for at least one team, and if there's no rush, it's just a grind on the central flag(s). So many aspects are watered down or completely eliminated because of the AAS game mode. 

 

You can't fix the players, you can only design the game so that the players play the "right" way.

 

Is it possible, that with rushing you mean the whole enemy team is rushing towards the first flag? If that's the case, then I have to agree with you. Then the enemy team probably won't be able to defend the first flag unless they put all their forces on their first flag or rush themselves.

 

But most of the times, isn't it only one squad rushing and killing the one lonely guy at the first flag who is just strolling around thinking he has nothing to do? 

Anyway, if the whole enemy team rushes than they have no one to cap their own flags and if they get wiped in some miracle case they are in a huge disadvantage since they just all got killed and don't even have a flag capped. And if they only send one guy to cap their own flags... well yeah, you also had the chance to rush or send some guys to the enemy's first flag to distract them or just kill that one guy.

 

And yes, you are right, you can't fix the players. But Squad still is standing for something (in my opinion) in the FPS-Tactic-Shooter-Genre and you shouldn't change it just because people (in this thread it looks like more ppl want it to change then to stay :/ ) want it to change.

 

You can't play Battlefield in its alpha stage and then tell the developers, they should make weapon handling ultra realistic because it's too casual at the moment even though Battlefield never stood for realism gameplay.


And I don't find rushing boring. It's boring because the team who got successfully rushed thinks they have no chance to cap the first flag ever again and just leave.... You could just surround the enemy (you have PLENTY of space to do that without the enemy noticing) and throw smokes from every angle and then go in for the kill. You can't tell me you can't cap a flag if everyone is coming from every possible direction through smoke with FOBs behind it... Just work together as a team and don't just go in from one direction and complain that it's impossible to win.

Not talking about you or anyone here, just my experience about rushing.

 

@Planetgong, @Nordic & @Webb : Finally some people with the same mindset. I didn't even want to look in this topic again but I got mentioned.

Edited by EKzyis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@EKzyis Here's the current meta: You drop off one guy on each flag that is not rush susceptible, you either 1 squad any rush-susceptible flags or risk leaving one guy on the flag, and you rush everything else to and past the center flag(s). You usually send one or more squads to any enemy flag that is rush susceptible as part of your team's advance. The aim is A) to control a majority of the flags, and B) to block the enemy cap. The common outcomes are as listed previously.

 

The problem isn't that it's hard to go back and cap the flag that's been rushed. It's that you're losing momentum and end up in a weak deployment position. You have squads that have to turn back and head for the rushed flag. Squads that would have dropped FOBs, engaged the enemy, halted their progress, and put pressure on them. You lose valuable minutes, assets are out of position, and plans are just dropped. You will almost certainly lose the fight over the central flag, and when that happens you're fighting against the ticket bleed. You're just not going to get back from that to win a game. You're most likely down on asset and player losses, you have a ticket bleed, and you have to be offensive and take the central flag if you're ever going to win. Meanwhile, the enemy has probably FOBed up the entire map, dug themselves in on the central flag or pushed past it, and can just fall back to the central flag and defend with the entire team. You still have to split your attention between two flags in case they try to sneak a 3-man squad on your defensive flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monkey wrench in the soup.....how about no flags at all and main bases are off the map or outside the map zone you need to capture?  to win you need to capture 90 percent of area of map? :)  This means rushing has no meaning unless your strategy is to rush to the main points on the map you think you can defend and continue to hold so you can advance to another position to capture entire area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, XRobinson said:

Monkey wrench in the soup.....how about no flags at all and main bases are off the map or outside the map zone you need to capture?  to win you need to capture 90 percent of area of map? :)  This means rushing has no meaning unless your strategy is to rush to the main points on the map you think you can defend and continue to hold so you can advance to another position to capture entire area.

 

That's just a redefinition of flags, and basically what I suggest in this thread:

 

You don't want it to be entirely territory-based, though, as you'll end up with the same terrain features being high value every game, again leading to repeating gameplay. That's why I suggest weighting the value of individual territories with varying degrees of randomization, so that the focus of each match isn't always the same(Which it would be if all territory was equally valuable).

 

Basically, the map is divided into territories of whatever size and shape the map maker wants, and the territories are weighted(Either randomly or randomly from presets). Team Mains can be placed randomly from presets, too. Teams then have to cap territory based on adjacency from their Main Base, and there's an incremental ticket bleed based on a percentage of the terrain value you control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel ieds are going to lessen the effectiveness of this tactic.  Depends on the map though.  Some maps allow you to not drive on a single road to get all the way to the enemies first flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good.  What if you could place flags on territory you capture?  Then that becomes a capture point for enemy?  And each team has a limit on how many flags it can place on map, and placing the max flags on map wins game maybe?  Terrain could also be so mixed that there is no one way always to control it....Not always one tactic that works every time, so randomization is not needed on this type of map.  What wins is out doing the enemy and not just using terrain as your main control tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tartantyco said:

Basically, everything should originate at the Main Base in some form. FOBs and RPs should require and consume resources for spawning. Building emplacements should require resources. Rearming and repairing vehicles outside of main should require resources.

that sounds like an excellent idea, as well as what you have already mentioned it will force SQL to co-ordinate a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tartantyco said:

You don't want it to be entirely territory-based, though, as you'll end up with the same terrain features being high value every game, again leading to repeating gameplay. That's why I suggest weighting the value of individual territories with varying degrees of randomization, so that the focus of each match isn't always the same(Which it would be if all territory was equally valuable).

 

Basically, the map is divided into territories of whatever size and shape the map maker wants, and the territories are weighted(Either randomly or randomly from presets). Team Mains can be placed randomly from presets, too. Teams then have to cap territory based on adjacency from their Main Base, and there's an incremental ticket bleed based on a percentage of the terrain value you control.


Interesting suggestions, +1. Im glad to hear that the devs might try something like this out. One question: will this work on large maps (with cap zones spread out all over the map) ? Even 100v100 might be forced to spread out too thinly, no? Thats sort the advantage of AAS / PAAS, that you get focused battles despite having huge maps (but as you have said yourself, the current implementation of AAS / PAAS usually lead to quite repetitive gameplay, nonetheless).

I guess I know have to go and read up on the Universal Logistical System :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2017 at 10:52 AM, plissken said:

@Tartantycowhat are your thoughts on how the rally/FOBs should be changed?

I feel like something should be done to encourage more of a "wave-based" attacks, rather than anyone being able to spawn in on ninja rallies alone, at any point of time. Too much "trickling in" of players attacking, you never get the feeling that you truly wiped out the attack. Would be nice if when you destroyed an enemy pushing your flag (especially sinced you had scouted him out beforehand), there would now be some silence around you, untill the enemy prepares a new wave of attack. It would also open a clear timing for you to make some kind of advance yourself, if you so wish.

4

You could easily make rallys only spawn in waves, every x minutes or when you have X number of player queued up. Give the SL a rechargable option to spawn everyone in the queue. So, every two minutes, the rally is ready to spawn on, or the SL can respawn everyone once every 10. Or, make them like PR where they have a limited life which more or less forces groups spawns. I'd prefer the latter, make the RP more of a one time, regroup type of spawn, not a constant spawnpoint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LugNut said:

You could easily make rallys only spawn in waves, every x minutes or when you have X number of player queued up. Give the SL a rechargable option to spawn everyone in the queue. So, every two minutes, the rally is ready to spawn on, or the SL can respawn everyone once every 10. Or, make them like PR where they have a limited life which more or less forces groups spawns. I'd prefer the latter, make the RP more of a one time, regroup type of spawn, not a constant spawnpoint. 

Or make them only work in CPs radious and with the "wave" system of somekind.. That is for AAS mode, other gamemodes could have something else that might fit their needs better.

Edited by WARti0k0ne -BG-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figure starting a game that has no flags at the start means both teams must plant their first flags in the first territory they occupy then move to next one, this means enemy team can not rush the opposing teams first flag because they do not even know where it is going to be planted!  This is not a good idea?  Let's give this a beta test.

 

Another what if: each team could only plant one flag, then only way to win is hold your flag while taking out enemy flag?  You do not know where flag is at all it must be searched and recon is very,  very,  important, first recon to locate could mean the win.  There is a lot of ways this could be made to play out.  Go recon!

Edited by XRobinson
more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×