Don't wear tags on the server? - Page 3

**Zoraster** · 09-14-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrJengles

I did wonder which half you meant, Zoraster. But Fruvous was talking about being on the losing side...in which case it is not up to him to make the difference you're saying he'd rather choose not to. If anyone tries for 3 rounds and nothing changes then I'm not surprised they'd feel like leaving. It is up to people on the winning side to fix things, so it is out of his control.

Then you said it is up to someone on the losing side to "step up, take charge, and challenge us" and as I already pointed out, they were already doing so and still losing. So those points seemed more directed at the first half of his post, than the second...since they were about people on the losing side doing more, rather than why the IHSs should be allowed to stick together.

I can understand why this was confusing because I didn't make it clear. The challenge us part is less about that particular instance. It's about the IHS getting challenged at all. If that IHS is beating up on people every time they play, then the solution isn't really to split them up, it's for others to, over the course of weeks and months, to figure out a way to challenge them.

In particular instances, the IHS will hopefully try to play on the weaker of the two sides. If they're winning by 100+ every time on one side and the teams look uneven, then joining the other side is probably something they should try. Though I will say that if they're winning by 100+ a time and the other side shouldn't be disadvantaged, then perhaps it's best not to. For example, if the 21st is on the super winning side and has a bunch of nonIHS on their side and they're playing against a fully stocked 999th, 3rd and other good players side, then I doubt the solution is for the 21st to switch over to join the 999th, etc.

MrJengles · 09-14-2009, 12:59 PM

Thank you.

I agree, that actually happens more often than the type of teamstacking being discussed here, I think. Even just cap-outs can be used as an example. Cap-outs can even prevent the "better" team from winning if they were taken by surprise and suddenly can't spawn or do anything, whether the winning team only had a few tickets left or whether it caused them to win by 100+.

Though that is why people rarely call teamstacking over TS unless it has been a few rounds in a row. I think when people call teamstacking in squad VOIP straight away, even before the round starts...it's more of a prediction, but they don't feel there is sufficient proof to ask anyone to switch. Just to point that out, and that's partly why "teamstacking" is heard more often than it actually happens.

SharinganTH1422 · 09-14-2009, 03:28 PM

I'd just like to say that I hope we don't turn this into the 7th being seen as the elitist evil people who raped the server constantly and just gave the finger to anyone saying they were doing wrong. The 7th contributed greatly to the development of the TG2142 community in a number of ways, such as tactics, skill level, and a lot more.

Also I don't buy the whole "we should feel bad for the more casual gamers" statement Black mirror. I consider myself much more casual than most others on here, but every time I get owned I know that I haven't spent hours learning and perfecting, etc. like these guys have. Sure it stings when you lose, but all those that don't spend as much time and aren't at that level can't complain because they haven't put the effort/time in. This game is competitive, people shouldn't be punished for being good at the game, and people who don't spend as much time should know what they're going to get out of the game.

@Bom, on your questions about teamstacking being coming from perception or reality, I think you could answer that question better than we could

. You said you removed your tags and the complaining stopped, but were you still having landslide victories? If not, then maybe it's a psychological thing - you see all the TG names on the other team and already (perhaps only subconsciously) don't believe you can win (I think Zoraster's point about defeatism ties in here - a lot of the time I have seen people playing very cautiously because of the names on the other team (including myself

) and it can cause some to lose morale). If you were still kicking butt, then perhaps the calls of teamstack only stopped because people couldn't identify you guys as those great teamplayers.

Like I say in my above post, the tags are meant to show that someone has reached a certain level of teamwork (especially if they're in an IHS), but you can't really identify the teamstack (whether intentional or unintentional) if they don't have the tags.

P.S. I'd just like to also point out that it's very rare you'd get 6 people from a single IHS being able to dominate like this, because it's pretty unlikely that 6 IHSers are on at the same time (unless they've scheduled a practice night and are meeting up on the sever to train or something) without at least quite a few other TGers and IHSers also being on, since this would only really happen at prime time.

**Fruvous** · 09-14-2009, 04:17 PM

I apologize as well for using the words that you bolded.. I criticised you for using such tactics (esp. when I did exactly the same thing).. and for not addressing the actual problem.. for actively attacking a group of players who aren't playing together because of the community..

The only thing I believe is,
'not' wearing tags on a server isn't going to solve anything.
Admins can randomize, sure, but it still takes a few rounds to get settled.
I like Jengles' idea of people joining one side to give actual balance, such as 20-16. But it sounds difficult because people from the 28 side will switch to make it look more like 18-18. People joining will make it 20-18.

Personally, the most permanent and simplest thing to do is:
limit the assault type maps. This includes Cerbere, Gibraltar, Berlin. Shingle is an exception solely because it is easy for assault to get a flag.

I propose this because given a solid defense in the beginning, it is nigh impossible for the assaulting side to get a flag. This means 200 tickets of head-bashing.
The problem is a little exacerbated in Gibraltar, where even if PAC gets Harbor, a rocket fest can ensue. Granted, I've been gaining respect for members trying to break up the monotony, but spam still tastes like spam, and tickets only dwindle slowly because of revives. It is also exacerbated if EU only has ruins and EUBase and both sides decide to be defensive.
The problem is a little exacerbated in Cerbere, where if EU only has Command Center, PAC is almost forced to assault the impenetrable fortress (and if not, will still lose the rocket war). Granted, a little strategic retreat from Roadblock will make a Command assault much easier, but the uninteresting stale defense is still there:
PAC will try its hardest to win against command center.
In every other map, PAC will try its hardest to get a stable foothold in the beginning. And even then runs the risk of losing the back flags.

At times, those maps have the strategic depth of tug-of-war. The easiest way to demonstrate this is Camp Gibraltar, where first PAC tries to contest for Harbor, then Toll, then Central, then Ruins, then EU Base (the game is slightly looser, but not by much. Toll can try to skip Central and go Ruins). Contrast that to Berlin or Tunis. Any flag can be contested territory.

I'm not proposing we ignore these maps altogether. They can be great tactical fun for both sides once the game plays more like a head-on map.
I'm just saying we shouldn't have a rotation that looks like
Assault-Assault-Assault-Headon-Large
(I'm not sure if this is the actual rotation. Just that this is what it feels like).

**Gorhaut** · 09-14-2009, 05:07 PM

Bommando, yes, perception do make a difference. If there is a significantly difference between the numbers of TG tagged people on different sides there usually is some complaints from public players about teamstacking. Now I know about several occasion then this have been the case and the team with the least TG tagged people won heavily so even though the perception is there, perception isn't always right.

A difference from your days Bommando is that there usually is a lot of public players on the server (atleast during the hours I usually play) so teamstacking is an issue from time to time (as it apparently was during your time) and I guess (I wasn't here during the days of the 7th) that there is relatively speaking easier to dominate these days due to more influx of public players. Particularly if you bring along a bunch of friends.

Teamstacking in reality, then one team is winning round after round with a huge marginal, from my point of view, isn't about IHS:s, it's about maturity. Philosophy as a gamer, if I realize that "we" are totally owning the team, I should do what I can to even things up. From a strictly egoistisc point of view, I win from it aswell since it is a lot more fun to win with just a few tickets instead of totally dominating round after round. Now, in all honestly, my personal effect on the outcome of a game probably won't make that much of a difference since there is a lot of more skilled people on the server than me. But atleast I will know that I have done what I can to even things up and hence making it more fun for everyone.

I mean, if you win round after round with 2-300 tickets it's quite obvious that the other team don't have the coordination, skill or whatever that is lacking to make it interesting or even remotly fun. What shows most maturity, stay on the winning side and continue to win, or do what you can to even things up and thereby making it more fun and interesting for everyone?

But yes, there is, and I think always will be, tensions between the more causal players and the more hardcore ones.

**Zoraster** · 09-14-2009, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fruvous

I apologize as well for using the words that you bolded.. I criticised you for using such tactics (esp. when I did exactly the same thing).. and for not addressing the actual problem.. for actively attacking a group of players who aren't playing together because of the community..

The only thing I believe is,
'not' wearing tags on a server isn't going to solve anything.
Admins can randomize, sure, but it still takes a few rounds to get settled.
I like Jengles' idea of people joining one side to give actual balance, such as 20-16. But it sounds difficult because people from the 28 side will switch to make it look more like 18-18. People joining will make it 20-18.

Personally, the most permanent and simplest thing to do is:
limit the assault type maps. This includes Cerbere, Gibraltar, Berlin. Shingle is an exception solely because it is easy for assault to get a flag.

I propose this because given a solid defense in the beginning, it is nigh impossible for the assaulting side to get a flag. This means 200 tickets of head-bashing.
The problem is a little exacerbated in Gibraltar, where even if PAC gets Harbor, a rocket fest can ensue. Granted, I've been gaining respect for members trying to break up the monotony, but spam still tastes like spam, and tickets only dwindle slowly because of revives. It is also exacerbated if EU only has ruins and EUBase and both sides decide to be defensive.
The problem is a little exacerbated in Cerbere, where if EU only has Command Center, PAC is almost forced to assault the impenetrable fortress (and if not, will still lose the rocket war). Granted, a little strategic retreat from Roadblock will make a Command assault much easier, but the uninteresting stale defense is still there:
PAC will try its hardest to win against command center.
In every other map, PAC will try its hardest to get a stable foothold in the beginning. And even then runs the risk of losing the back flags.

At times, those maps have the strategic depth of tug-of-war. The easiest way to demonstrate this is Camp Gibraltar, where first PAC tries to contest for Harbor, then Toll, then Central, then Ruins, then EU Base (the game is slightly looser, but not by much. Toll can try to skip Central and go Ruins). Contrast that to Berlin or Tunis. Any flag can be contested territory.

I'm not proposing we ignore these maps altogether. They can be great tactical fun for both sides once the game plays more like a head-on map.
I'm just saying we shouldn't have a rotation that looks like
Assault-Assault-Assault-Headon-Large
(I'm not sure if this is the actual rotation. Just that this is what it feels like).

If it helps, the current rotation has 6 head on, 7 assault, 4 armor (three head on, one assault). If a proposed edit goes through it'll be 6 head on, 1 16p headon, 8 assault (four as 32p tickets), and the same armor.

Keep in mind there are two headon maps and four assault. Since people seem to like assault maps pretty well, we can't really afford to limit them much.

SharinganTH1422 · 09-14-2009, 05:42 PM

Fruvous, Gibraltar is no way too linear after Toll is taken by PAC.

And I think Toll would be taken a lot more often if the SL<->SL Teamspeak channels were used. I would love to see 2-3 squads trying coordinated rushes with smokes/radar grenades/camo/sniper decoys and a CO's UAV.

e.g. (Sorry if you don't follow this) CO's usually spread their soldiers thinly all over Toll on defence (as they must do), but if a massive force of attackers suddenly attacked from one more lightly defended area (up high on the catwalks is usually where the defence is slightly lighter) I'm confident it could push through. Then some go off to jump down directly north of Toll flag and put some pressure there, while others try and flank and secure the area around the flag to stop people rocketing the flag, while others go off to see if they can sneak past to Ruins/Central/EU Base. SL coordination and a half-decent CO can make a lot of difference to breaking up stalemates because people rely on the fact that they probably won't be facing more than 6 enemies at a time, and just prepare for that. Overwhelm them with numbers and at least some semblance of a plan and the balance is no longer theirs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorhaut

But yes, there is, and I think always will be, tensions between the more causal players and the more hardcore ones.

Why? I really don't understand this "tension". Even casual gamers give their all in-game and hardcore gamers can (usually) have a giggle when trotting between flags, so I think this so-called "division" has been blown a little out of proportion by quite a few forum regulars.

**LordKelvin** · 09-14-2009, 07:48 PM

To be a bit more on topic, your average player who doesn't know names, only the tags will only cry teamstack after a crushing defeat by a team of tagged players.

Also, the tags are incredibly significant: my untagged secondary soldier never gets TG squad invites and no one expects much of me. As soon as I redon the |TG-SC|, immediately I'm supposed to be an unstoppable juggernaut in a piece of armor and a good shot with my AR. Not saying that I'm not a good player, but a lot more is expected of those who wear the tag and I think it strongly influences others perception of why they lost. And yes, crying scapegoat is human nature. We can only strive to look past our own excuses and try and meet the challenge. You might not win today or tommorrow, but keep at it for a month and you'll see how much you can improve and achieve.