Does AAS promote 'negative play'?

big-paddy · January 04, 2006, 10:33:51 AM

QuoteOriginally posted by Armitage@Jan 3 2006, 05:58 PM
There is never any reason to enter UCB on the hook due to the lack of commander.

personally I'm not a big fan of people sneaking way past the point of combat to steal any vehicle. especially US stealing tanks and AP's from the last base in 64 player karkand, when the combat is still at the suburbs (Before anybody says anything. I know it's allowed)
[post=107933]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

I dont see a problem taking vehicles. BB caught me in the US base on Karkand on Saturday trying to do that. It was really wierd. I knew he had seen me, but thought it unethical to shoot at him. So I hid in clear view. He came over and seemed to take forever to hetting round to shoot me.

That is one of the problems of sneaking around, sometimes you find yourself in a position where you cant act.

Ranger · January 04, 2006, 10:55:32 AM

QuoteOriginally posted by big-paddy@Jan 4 2006, 10:33 AM
I dont see a problem taking vehicles. BB caught me in the US base on Karkand on Saturday trying to do that. It was really wierd. I knew he had seen me, but thought it unethical to shoot at him. So I hid in clear view. He came over and seemed to take forever to hetting round to shoot me.

That is one of the problems of sneaking around, sometimes you find yourself in a position where you cant act.
[post=107995]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

Hmmm, I've always been a bit confused about the vehicle in the UCB situation too.

From the SpecOps point of view the UCB is fair game in order to destroy material assets - this is usually interpreted as being the radar and UAV trailer...

But my question has always been - aren't vehicles in the UCB assets too?

Anyway - this is off-topic for two reasons, first because dMw doesn't use a commander the UAV and radar are less strategic in our game and also this thread is supposed to be about the negative effects of so-called choke-point!

To get back on track, I simply don't want situation where ~ as happened last week ~ Armitage actually felt he had to leave a game because he got fed up of the Zatar Wetlands choke point (Hill BAse) which we were dogedly defending, knowing we would win on tickets.

His perfectly reasonable comment in the game was 'can't you guys PUSH a bit - this is getting boring'.

And I'm sure to him it probably was!

In 'our' defence, everyone knows that Zatar is a race to that central base, and there is always a very nice little battle there to begin with to be 'king of the hill'. And so I suspect - no disrespect intended Armitage - had the other team won this race they probably wouldn't have complained.

Also, why SHOULDN'T a team defend heavily...BF2 is all about tactics.

MY POINT...Was to compare BF2 to football in a way, where some big teams are accussed of being 'boring' because they play a 'negative' defensive game.

The manager's response is always the same - 'it's all about winning'.

But for the fans this kinda play can be a bit soul-destroying.

What I was trying to ask is whether people felt that this kind of negativity was not in the dMw spirit - or is it a fair tactic?

On a personal note - after Armitage made his comment in the game I asked my squad what they felt and what they wanted to do. We took a vote and they said they felt happy defending...

My usual tactic in this situation is to hold the important flag and then to send across a skirmisher or two every so often to see if they can steal the next flag...

But then I thought we all did that?

Sn00ks · January 04, 2006, 11:04:02 AM

Hmm I think most of us play because of the fun element, but it is always a bonus if you win. If this means playing defensively, because you know that if you push you'll lose, I think is OK.
Some frag monkeys might find this boring

but setting up a good defense that repulses all advances can be quite satisfying. It is probably good practice too. If we ever play other clans and have mutiple squads with different roles then knowing an effective defense strategy would be worth it.
A battle isn't all about attack, attack. Sometimes you take a strategic point and control it to win the battle.
My 10ps worth.

Ranger · January 04, 2006, 11:10:44 AM

QuoteOriginally posted by Sn00ks@Jan 4 2006, 11:04 AM
Hmm I think most of us play because of the fun element, but it is always a bonus if you win. If this means playing defensively because you know that if you push you'll lose I think is OK.
Some frag monkeys might find this boring but setting up a good defense tha repulses all advances can be quite satisfying. It is probably good practive too. If we ever play other clans and have mutiple squads with different roles then knowing an effective defense strategy would be worth it.
A battle isn't all about attack, attack. Sometimes you take a strategic point and control it to win the battle.
My 10ps worth.
[post=108001]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

I'm with you 100% there...

Another very good example of this situation is the first base in Dragon Valley (The Village)...

How many times have you played USMC and NOT been able to get past there?

(I always meant to start a thread to poll whether we should allow th US team to 'have' the village by default...in fact i will do tht now while I remember!)

DogMeat · January 04, 2006, 11:10:55 AM

QuoteOriginally posted by Ranger@Jan 4 2006, 11:55 AM
But then I thought we all did that?

What - bore the opposition into leaving? :roflmao:

Ranger · January 04, 2006, 11:11:38 AM

QuoteOriginally posted by DogMeat@Jan 4 2006, 11:10 AM
What - bore the opposition into leaving? :roflmao:
[post=108004]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

No - that's just me!

LOL

Anonymous · January 04, 2006, 11:41:09 AM

QuoteOriginally posted by big-paddy@Jan 4 2006, 10:33 AM
I dont see a problem taking vehicles. BB caught me in the US base on Karkand on Saturday trying to do that. It was really wierd. I knew he had seen me, but thought it unethical to shoot at him. So I hid in clear view. He came over and seemed to take forever to hetting round to shoot me.
[post=107995]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

I was torn :devil:

Anonymous · January 04, 2006, 11:44:29 AM

QuoteOriginally posted by Ranger@Jan 4 2006, 10:55 AM
Hmmm, I've always been a bit confused about the vehicle in the UCB situation too.

From the SpecOps point of view the UCB is fair game in order to destroy material assets - this is usually interpreted as being the radar and UAV trailer...

But my question has always been - aren't vehicles in the UCB assets too?

Anyway - this is off-topic for two reasons, first because dMw doesn't use a commander the UAV and radar are less strategic in our game and also this thread is supposed to be about the negative effects of so-called choke-point!

To get back on track, I simply don't want situation where ~ as happened last week ~ Armitage actually felt he had to leave a game because he got fed up of the Zatar Wetlands choke point (Hill BAse) which we were dogedly defending, knowing we would win on tickets.

His perfectly reasonable comment in the game was 'can't you guys PUSH a bit - this is getting boring'.

And I'm sure to him it probably was!

In 'our' defence, everyone knows that Zatar is a race to that central base, and there is always a very nice little battle there to begin with to be 'king of the hill'. And so I suspect - no disrespect intended Armitage - had the other team won this race they probably wouldn't have complained.

Also, why SHOULDN'T a team defend heavily...BF2 is all about tactics.

MY POINT...Was to compare BF2 to football in a way, where some big teams are accussed of being 'boring' because they play a 'negative' defensive game.

The manager's response is always the same - 'it's all about winning'.

But for the fans this kinda play can be a bit soul-destroying.

What I was trying to ask is whether people felt that this kind of negativity was not in the dMw spirit - or is it a fair tactic?

On a personal note - after Armitage made his comment in the game I asked my squad what they felt and what they wanted to do. We took a vote and they said they felt happy defending...

My usual tactic in this situation is to hold the important flag and then to send across a skirmisher or two every so often to see if they can steal the next flag...

But then I thought we all did that?
[post=108000]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

The dMw spirit from CZ has always been to move people between teams to try and even things up. Can be tricky on BF2 but if one team is defending consistently and it is jsut a case of ticket run down then IMHO the right thing to happen is for someone to swap from defending team to attacking team. If there is a pitched battle over a point and the defending team are trying to advance but cannot get the impetus to go further then that is different. Just sitting holding a point letting the tickets run down will spoil peoples enjoyment unless it is really close to the end of a map.

My 2p

Ranger · January 04, 2006, 11:54:52 AM

QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall@Jan 4 2006, 11:44 AM
The dMw spirit from CZ has always been to move people between teams to try and even things up. Can be tricky on BF2 but if one team is defending consistently and it is jsut a case of ticket run down then IMHO the right thing to happen is for someone to swap from defending team to attacking team. If there is a pitched battle over a point and the defending team are trying to advance but cannot get the impetus to go further then that is different. Just sitting holding a point letting the tickets run down will spoil peoples enjoyment unless it is really close to the end of a map.

My 2p
[post=108016]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

Yep - and to be frank I'm not saying I disagree.

Which is why I asked my squad what they thought, but to be fair, if you ae winningyou don't like giving up a winning position do you? LOL

Like you - and this is why I started this thread - I like it when everyone is enjoying it. I was (seriously) a bit upset when Armtage left.

If I did anything different in the future I would have probably ensured that my squad was split into an attack and defense team and that we made a real effort to push people forward...

I didn't *feel* like we were doing anything wrong in holding a good position, as there are several of us (myself included) who particularly like to defend. But in a group like ours, where winning ISN'T the chief priority I think you do have to - as funny as it sounds - think about how the other team and whether they are enjoying themselves...

After all, we are all 'the other team' 50% of the time, so you have to put yourself in thier position.

A win where the other team has left because they are bored is a bit of an empty win!

(Incidently this is the reason I am so quick to point out team ballancing ~ I hate it when you think you have had a really good win, only to have someone com on the forum the next day and say 'well you did have more in your team than us'. It really takes teh shine off!)

Boris · January 04, 2006, 11:57:32 AM

but invariably after these kind of games, you get people posting straight away about what an intense battle and how close and great it was - i assumed everyone enjoyed the close ones when the defenders had locked down and you had to find a way in

Anonymous · January 04, 2006, 12:01:47 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by Boris@Jan 4 2006, 11:57 AM
but invariably after these kind of games, you get people posting straight away about what an intense battle and how close and great it was - i assumed everyone enjoyed the close ones when the defenders had locked down and you had to find a way in
[post=108021]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

:withstupid:

Ranger · January 04, 2006, 12:08:42 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by Boris@Jan 4 2006, 11:57 AM
but invariably after these kind of games, you get people posting straight away about what an intense battle and how close and great it was - i assumed everyone enjoyed the close ones when the defenders had locked down and you had to find a way in
[post=108021]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

You are right - and I will make this my last point (honest LOL)

I forgot to add one strange thing that maybe only applies to me (maybe because I am Scottish < not trying to be funny by saying this!)...

But I sometimes LIKE to be on the losing side, with all the odds stacked against me!

I have only EVER left ONE game of BF2 because it was going badly for me ~ that was that time where loads of 'guests' invaded Meathook and started raping the USB because they didn't know our rules...

That is the ONLY time.

I love to fight on to the last - I NEVER give up...And with good reason, there have been quite a few occassions when my team has come right back from an apparent loss to take a game...

And aren't those the BEST games?

Even that really mad situation with the Farm on Dragon Valley - I have spent whole games just fighting between the US UCB and the Farm! But have I given up?

NO!

Because I like the odds stacked against me.

So - yes, sometimes there is 'negative' play in the game (if you percieve GOOD defense as negative) but it's a really good feeling to overcome this!

Just an observation! (Apparently disagreeing with myself there as well! LOL)

BIG-Glen · January 04, 2006, 12:28:06 PM

in the AAS game i dont care if im winnign or losing but it always seems quite fun.

its good even if you've just joind a game half way through because you still no what to do, just go attack the nearest base with your team,

simple.

...and i think that everyone likes the AAS as long as it has a good route planned for the map, like karkand and songhua, i think that these 2 AAS routes are done the best because you dont no which side will win. i believe that on these 2 maps each team has an equal chance at winning, and each time i have played this map ive seen each side win an equal amount of times.

so my point is: i think that to make some maps more enjoyable the AAS routes may just need to be tweaked a little so that teams have more of an even chance.

DuVeL · January 04, 2006, 01:12:58 PM

Here are my points: ......
Nah, I like AAS. It's quit easy but can get quit tactical. Pushing back the enemy away from a base is really difficult and takes tactics and when you achieve it by excellent teamplay it's allright.

Anonymous · January 04, 2006, 01:22:37 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by BIG-Glen@Jan 4 2006, 12:28 PM
so my point is: i think that to make some maps more enjoyable the AAS routes may just need to be tweaked a little so that teams have more of an even chance.
[post=108030]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

Absolutely

Let's hope Lib doesn't have too much ongoing at the moment