Opinion: Pet Peeve on Laming in FFG on East vs. Best

[XXxPrePxX]

Let me know what you think, but this is one of my biggest pet peeves.

In FFG 3on3's on East vs. Best, we know the map diverges into a cliff showdown between the two teams based on the oils.

Something that I've been seeing happening is that the player who moves MCV will often move mcv so far to the other side as to immediately take over the other oil derrick i.e. have their teammates build sentrys around it so the other players oil derrick gets taken or owned.

THIS IS LAME AS FUCK AND YOU ARE RUINING THE GAME BY DOING THIS.

I auto-quit when this happens usually. This is a FFG and by moving your mcv and having your opponents build off your MCV to fuck over the other teams oil derrick you are NOT giving the other team a chance to compete. Sure, you might respond with "well, they should move their mcv far enough too" but come on... just give both teams their derricks and compete instead of trying to over take the derrick by force via immediate sentry guns, have a good all out fight.

Often times, when I am cliff, I don't even move my MCV, so when this happens my engi gets immediately owned by the sentry gun that somehow appears next to my oil. Congrats guys, you moved your MCV to my oil derrick and had your teammates build a sentry, now you own the derrick and can easily kill another teammates derrick and have all gems. Really worth playing, huh???? To me, this type of strategy is as bad or worse then the engi-killers in FFGs. It's worse then the engi rushers or seal rushers in FFGs. At least those moves can by stopped.

In a clan game or ranked game -- sure -- by all means necessary, but a FFG? This ruins the game in the first 1 minute and makes it not worth playing.

Give me your opinion on this? I just fucking can't stand it.

[FlyingMustache]

It's the meta game for that map. If you decide not to move, that's the risk you take. It's completely legitimate.

 

This is like hecks meta game. Moving to mid in a team game is a must. You can choose not to move if you want, but you will probably want to rush or die.

[XXxPrePxX]

Just now, FlyingMustache said:

It's the meta game for that map. If you decide not to move, that's the risk you take. It's completely legitimate.

 

This is like hecks meta game. Moving to mid in a team game is a must. You can choose not to move if you want, but you will probably want to rush or die.

I just disagree. I say gentleman sport here to make it a legit GG and not over in 1 minute.... to me it's the equivalent of one team having the entire middle of heck in the first 90 seconds, that's worthy of auto-quitting a heck game.

If you move mcv, move it to your Oil derrick area, NOT all the way to the middle of the pathway to build a sentry at other opponents oil derrick.

I just don't understand why in a FFG a team would want to have such an unfair advantage in the first 60 seconds. If you told me I could have all the middle of heck in a 3on3 I wouldn't want to play....

[FlyingMustache]

I understand, but it's still m.e.t.a. Due to this, I will often play edited versions like heck no gems.

[scalpem]

I dont get what the problem is. If both teams move it shouldn't be a problem, unless one team spawns closer.

[LeOwNzAll]

I agree with you. 

You want to play FFG, so let’s do something fun. What’s the point playing it? Else put directly an unfair map. 

 

/// another subject - 

Its not the first time I see you complaining about lame tactics in 1st min, as engi eat, engi rush (in another topic for QM), and you laughed about WOL 3 mns rules. 

This « poor » rule for you, allowed to play fair game, like dog can’t kill engi before 3rd mn then they could. Was like multi-engineer ON for 1st 3 mn, then OFF.

and as the time is speed in the game, 3rd min it’s around something 2 ref after WF. 

Maybe we can discuss it was a bit long, maybe 2 min would be better. I think it was calculated to prevent engi/IFV or flak. (Time to build WF, flak then go to MVc of opponent and get it).

Thus, there was no lame tactic/lame players. And so the players had to be better because they could do not use these tactics, but had to play good. 

[XXxPrePxX]

16 minutes ago, LeOwNzAll said:

I agree with you. 

You want to play FFG, so let’s do something fun. What’s the point playing it? Else put directly an unfair map. 

 

/// another subject - 

Its not the first time I see you complaining about lame tactics in 1st min, as engi eat, engi rush (in another topic for QM), and you laughed about WOL 3 mns rules. 

This « poor » rule for you, allowed to play fair game, like dog can’t kill engi before 3rd mn then they could. Was like multi-engineer ON for 1st 3 mn, then OFF.

and as the time is speed in the game, 3rd min it’s around something 2 ref after WF. 

Maybe we can discuss it was a bit long, maybe 2 min would be better. I think it was calculated to prevent engi/IFV or flak. (Time to build WF, flak then go to MVc of opponent and get it).

Thus, there was no lame tactic/lame players. And so the players had to be better because they could do not use these tactics, but had to play good. 

There's a biggggggggg difference between QM/tournament style play and FFG play. BIG difference. I don't complain about engi eat/engi rush/any tactic in QM/tournament style play. 

 

[LeOwNzAll]

Ah nvm so !

[FlyingMustache]

Engineer is bad design anyway. $500 to mind control a building. I always keep multi engineer option on when I host.

[[CC] RaVaGe]

$500? So that engi is going to walk itself across the map into your building holding that $500 cash and just bribe your building to slither itself into your currently least favourite colour?
You need to spend $600 on a transport to make it at least somewhat effective, once you see it, the opponent has to evade drones, dogs, war miners, sentry guns and deso to find itself close enough to your buildings to spray all those $500 dollars all over your structure in comic relief.

[[CC] RaVaGe]

@Ontopic
If the map is so poorly balanced that it allows such tactics then you shouldn't play it, personally I've never liked it for it's meta, 2 spots always need to move mcv, rest of the game is just camp with supers. It feels like playing against Yuri there's just so many boring annoyances about it, the little base walk, sentry fight mid, the horrendously long camp as everyone spent all their money on supers and has no army.

I would say my pet peeve would be in-game balances,
for example, where on offence defence most sovs can spam only factories, while any tech/supers build is completely ruled out.
Where soviets have a massive rush potential on small maps, yet can be seriously underpowered in the late game.

The meta game doesn't seem to have an even enough balance to make it easier to keep all sides from teching fast, sometimes it can be way too easy to camp in the middle game to reach supers fast which makes the game kinda dull for me. I'd prefer consistent action throughout.

 

[XXxPrePxX]

I definitely understand your points Frequenzy. However, I've had many enjoyable games (usually with super weapons OFF) on EvB where both teams have equality over their derricks and begin a fight for the middle leading to a very CAMPY 3on3 team game, but a very good campy game at that. 

Sometimes, it being a FFG, I really enjoy the team work it takes in a 3on3 game with allieds getting BF's / mirages/ prisms, and the sov player going rhinos/apocs/siege/kirovs/boris on the map. 

It does diverge into a camp fest, but a somewhat teamwork based tactical camp fest at that :). 

Which is why I hate it so much when people ruin these games by taking over the middle derricks without even allowing a fight. (That almost automatically leads to the takeover team killing at least 1 more opponents derrick and then its maybe 1 derrick vs. 4 derricks and complete land control, all in the first 1 minute of the game without a fight).

[[CC] RaVaGe]

They must leave some sort of opening you can abuse while they are doing that.

[XXxPrePxX]

My idea of EvB is a 3on3 in which their is a camp in the middle and one team takes it over due to a variety of allied+soviet units and structures.

Then, the other team pulls back and camps with bfs/mirages/rockies/para however possible and chips away at the other team, while the other team uses forces of rockies + prisms + bfs + rhinos + apocs + siege to take over.

 a GG!

 

Many of these types of games with clan dustco and @FlyingMustache in 2010 ish.

Edited November 21, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[XXxPrePxX]

16 hours ago, scalpem said:

I dont get what the problem is. If both teams move it shouldn't be a problem, unless one team spawns closer.

I don't know... the way I look at it is like this:

In a 3on3 on TOE with crates on, you wouldn't rush your opponents with 3 rhino tanks, right? That'd ruin the game for the other 5 players involved (including your teammates).

Moving your mcv such that you can build a sentry near/at the opponents cliff oil derrick on EvB is basically the same thing IMO. 

[Grant]

18 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

Let me know what you think, but this is one of my biggest pet peeves.

In FFG 3on3's on East vs. Best, we know the map diverges into a cliff showdown between the two teams based on the oils.

Something that I've been seeing happening is that the player who moves MCV will often move mcv so far to the other side as to immediately take over the other oil derrick i.e. have their teammates build sentrys around it so the other players oil derrick gets taken or owned.

THIS IS LAME AS FUCK AND YOU ARE RUINING THE GAME BY DOING THIS.

This is just tactics and has been around since forever. Not lame.

[XXxPrePxX]

33 minutes ago, Grant said:

This is just tactics and has been around since forever. Not lame.

These are all FFG's not ranked games:  Would you say the same thing for the following situations:

1. 3v3 on Heck, one player moves MCV to mid, other two teammates build ore refs off of him and they have all gems immediately, thus ruining the dynamic of a proper 3on3 there?

2. One player rushes the other play in a 3on3 on ToE with crates on.

3. In any 6 player FFA with 1 unit on and crates on, one player gets immediate elite tank and takes out 1-2 other players.

4. An immediate engi rush in any 3on3 FFG.

5. Borderline tactic/cheat: If a player loses MCV, unally and take friend's extra MCV.

All these things are just tactics and have been around forever, but surely... in a FFG environment, we can consider these tactics to ruin the game for 5 of the other players, no? 

However, it seems most people agree with you -- that it isn't lame. If I was playing with people who did these types of tactics, I'd probably kick them from my game, if it was purely a FFG that we were meant to be enjoying together. In theory, any FFG should seek to maximize the fun output of all 6 players.

 

To me, a tactic is more than forcing your buildings over the other players territory in the first 45 seconds of the game to take an unfair advantage. If that is done, I auto-quit. Then who really wins? None of us, because the game went nowhere and we all lost time. Now if it is announced a head of time that we are playing for cut throat, sure -- it's a tactic and I'd respond by trying to do the same, and trying to fuck them over any way possible. 

[FlyingMustache]

Prep, there is no "proper 3v3." That type of thinking goes against the spirit of RTS. The instances you are citing are centralized yes, but players aren't to blame. The map is. Moving to mid in heck is a meta move. If you want to change that meta, do something about it. I did. Put multiengie, put heck no gems version, turn off build off ally con, etc. That's the great thing about the game. You can change it.

[XXxPrePxX]

I shouldn't have used the term proper. That is elitist.

But there is unspoken rules that we all follow.

IF there wasn't, every game would diverge into an engi rush in the first 3 minutes. You may tell me to put multiengineer on.

How will that stop my tank getting promoted from crates in 30 seconds and taking out another opponent? You may say don't play with crates.

How can that stop me from abusing maps like heck middle or what I talk about with EvB cliffs? You say re-do the maps or just play a select few of maps.

Soon this thought process becomes so complex that i can only play with a select few people and on certain maps/situations.

That's not the reality of the game -- i sign in, i play with anyone/everyone over wide range of maps + settings. In a FFG there is unspoken rules that maximize the fun output for everyone involved. No one on any side wants someone to own the whole other team in the first 90 seconds. That ruins any game on any map.

I understand your point -- but I don't think it's very realistic.

On that note -- a large majority of games I play on CNCNET (FFG's, 6 player, 4 player, or 8 player) are really good GG's.

Edited November 22, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[[CC] RaVaGe]

Like @FlyingMustache said it goes against the spirit of RTS, the general idea is to come up with the best strategy/tactic that gives you the upper hand.
We all play to win not to lose while taking part in some minority's vision of a GG.

[FlyingMustache]

Yes, everyone has a different preference of playstyle. The reason I tell you to make a solution is because at the end of the day, nobody is going to change how they play based on your opinion or mine. I understand what you mean about a code of honor. Kireeek and I hosted all kinds of ffgs over time. Except not everyone shares the same code of honor. Also, your statement about customization being unrealistic is false. Log in now and look at the lobby. I guarantee you'll see half of the lobbies being custom maps. Customization is already reality. That line of thinking spread a long time ago.

[XXxPrePxX]

37 minutes ago, FReQuEnZy said:

Like @FlyingMustache said it goes against the spirit of RTS, the general idea is to come up with the best strategy/tactic that gives you the upper hand.
We all play to win not to lose while taking part in some minority's vision of a GG.

False. It's the majority's version of a GG. Always has been.

 

[[CC] RaVaGe]

Not if you account for all RTS, not just RA2/YR.

[Kireeek]

Hey @XXxPrePxX, I am glad you remember the epic EvB games we had on XWIS from my clan (Dustco) years ago.

I figured I would chime in, I have had that same exact issue happen on multiple occasions on EvB, being a map that my clan / group has definitely enjoyed over the years. I am aware of this "code of honor" for that map.

One way to deal with players who attempt to move far into the opposing team's Oil Derrick, which they then expect help from an ally to build Sentries / Pills, is to turn off "Build Off Ally", the player that attempts to move too far into enemy territory, is more than likely to lose (they lose precious build time), this almost always works for me and prevents these "player(s)" from attempting these shenanigans a second time. This works if you are obviously hosting the game however, I have had many instances of persuading the host of another game to turn off "Build of Ally", by calling them out and challenging them.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Kireeek

[[NRA]Rocketeer]

Laming sucks on both FFG and Tourny/Clan more tollerable in FFG but ultimately still trash!