Cheap tactics in competitive games

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

I think the whole rocket launcher thing is dumb. If your opponent can blow up your building with a rocket, then why the hell would you stay in that building, rather than find another spot to snipe from? Hell, aren't you supposed to find another sniper spot after you've killed someone and keep moving around so the enemy can't get close to you? Stupid kid.

As for "cheap", there are six main criteria for me to consider something cheap (in an and/or format):
1) It can't be effectively countered
2) It completely overshadows other possible tools/tactics/mechanics
3) It exploits game mechanics in ways that the developer's didn't intend
4) It's glitched in such a way that makes it powerful or unbalanced
5) It severely disrupts the flow of the game
6) It gives one player an unfair advantage because they spent money

The severity of each is judged on a case-by-case basis. In your Battlefield 3 story, your tactic wasn't cheap because the sniper could've gone to find another spot to snipe from. However, his WAS cheap, because you couldn't get close and couldn't flush him out or else you'd get kicked. There wasn't really an effective way to counter his methods. You did your best to adapt to your situation; he tried to make his situation adapt to him.

There needs to be a distinction between "cheap" and "unfun". While there is a big overlap, there are a ton of strategies that are unfun but not cheap.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

a cheap tactic is a tactic which there is no defence against, either by dodging, blocking or reflex counter-attacks.
blowing a sniper out of his house is not a cheap tactic, he could've clearly seen your big fuck-off bazooka and moved away from the window.

cover penetrating snipers with thermal vision whilst laying in the grass with a ghilly suit comes way closer to cheap than that.

also, camping, is cheap depending on the game its in, but is ill-advisable in team games.

 

[Evil Smurf]

camping can wreck fun, is is in overpowered though. just really annoying

 

[Fijiman]

I always saw camping as a legitimate tactic. I sure as hell don't have the attention span to do it, but camping has it's own risks and opportunities, so I never saw any reason to dislike it so much despite the overwhelming hate for it, it seems.

I generally don't mind camping, but it always annoys the crap out of me when neither I nor anyone else on my team can get the bastard(s) out of their camping spot for more than two seconds.

 

[LightningBanks]

i agree with you except in one case... the AWP. nothing sucks more than entering a CS game with the opposite team awp camping... that gun is overpowered...

Im not sure if you've played GO, but it seems to have died down alot now. 9/10 Ive managed to survive the first shot and countered. I think it might be down to the guns having the ability to hit while spraying, or just general panic. Or people are just rubbish with it.

It feels weird going from avp banned servers in Source to GO and seeing almost no difference

 

[Dansen]

To paraphrase David Sirlin: If you think something is "cheap" or "overpowered", try playing/using it yourself. You will find out very quickly what exists in the game to counter that, and a properly balanced game will evolve its meta to defeat that particular build/strategy/tactic/weapon/whatever.

Basically, there is no such thing as a "cheap tactic", only tactics that haven't yet been countered.

...unless there is something horribly wrong with the game. While broken game mechanics is a possibility, that's far less likely than most players would think.

Pretty much this...which most people seem to have glossed over. -_-
Hell, even that last part about broken game mechanics can be a good thing as these sorts of exploits, once mastered, often become integral to how a game plays. I really wish that more developers took a "Wait and see" approach to things (not 'wait' as in time but wait as in data accrual) before making changes to their products as I can't even count at this point how many times something got patched, banned, etc. that in hindsight probably didn't need to be.

Oh and UMVC3's Dark Wesker. Fuck you Wesker. You suck. I don't mind getting owned when it's someone cool like Dante because some of his combos are damn awesome, yet Wesker has precisely 2 or 3 boring combos all of them including the cheapest spammable self OTG gunshot I have ever seen.

Every time one of these threads pop-up someone will, without fail, bring up the character who is maybe the 7th best character in UMvC3 as an example and while yes Wesker is annoying (due to the rare overlap of being good enough and piss easy to play) there are a ton of things worse than him in the game.

Oh I know he's not the best in the game. However all the super best characters are y'know, interesting? Swaggy TAC Doom combos? Ammy/Doom setups? C.Viper touch of deathing everyone? Cool. Awesome.

What's Wesker doing? Gunshot, teleport. gunshot, teleport all fucking day. Have you ever seen any awesome stuff with Wesker? Ever? I for one have not even in some epic UMVC3 tourneys. He's so boring and safe I hate him

Actually really cheap stuff is Nova/Frank West. I hate that team.

Believe it or not I think Ghost Rider might be the best character with the right assists. He has no openings with Taskmaster assist.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No one can say that spawn camping intentionally isn't a cheap tactic that ruins a game. Normal camping fine and camping when you are defending an objective fine but spawn camp however, and short of hackers you are pretty much the worst kind of person online.

Spawn camping is not a tactic, it is incompetence from the mapdesigner / developer. Example: It is impossible to camp the spawn in TF2 because the people spawn in safety and can prepare properly (like switch class or just pop in and out and shoot the enemies). Like the camping part, it only applies if the players in question use their brains.

If the people making the map would actually include a safe spawnarea or short invincibility then spawn camping would not be there at all.

It is still something that abuses an exploit in the system and no matter what way you slice. Also if you think camping is a strategy which you do then spawn camping is also a tactic as instead of camping in a random place you are camping the spawn zone. Only difference is placement and intent.

I could easily say anything that is cheap is incompetence on the mapdesigner / developer but it doesn't invalidate it as a tactic.

 

[Joccaren]

All depends on the circumstance.

What you did was perfectly fine in my eyes, and in most reasonable BF3 players eyes. It is in no way cheap, it simply uses a tool at your desposal. What I do count as cheap is the groups of 7 or 8 players who will spam RPGs/SMAWs/M320s down that hallway, or down the stairs, or grenades down the stairs, using infinite reloads thanks to a bunch of engineers with them, creating an impassible line that stops the game there unless you want to waste a ton of tickets to get past them. In a number of maps I wouldn't mind, as you could probably sneak around behind them, however on Metro the only other way around is through a large, open area where machine gunners and snipers will pick you off the second you turn the corner. It becomes a game of just dying and hoping to make a dent in what is an all but impenetrable defense - at least on 64 player matches.
I also found the original Frag Round USAS to be cheap, as it was effectively a rapid fire long range 2 shot kill that you didn't need to aim. Then, thankfully, it was nerfed. A lot of servers still ban it, though IMO it works alright now, and isn't ban worthy, though previously it was a "I'm a higher level than you so I win" sort of cheap tactic.

If something is broken in the game, then using it is a cheap tactic. If its all balanced well, everything is fair game. However, balance depends on weapons, maps, upgrades, perks, vehicles and a whole bunch of other aspects, so it varies from game to game and match to match. Something unbalanced on Metro is a lot closer to useless on Operation Firestorm.

Any kind os Sniper Rifle in competitive FPS are cheap in my eyes.


Sorry, I just dont get how people blame Noobtubes, RPGS and whatnot to be cheap when a Sniper Rifle is pretty much the same thing as them, an unavoidable 1 hit kill death. The only difference is that the Sniper Rifles take a bit more skills than those, but the very fact that you have to relly than the Sniper misses to counter makes it VERY cheap. Add Quickscope and its even worse than the noobtube IMO. At least most people dont like the noobtubes, on the other hand snipers are apparently leet pros. NO. specially those that quickscope. I know its suppused to be a 1 hit kill weapon, but dying in 1 hit from nowhere, with nothing to learn from your death except "Damn, thougt luck" its NOT FUN. Nonono, I hate sniper rifles with a pasion. At least in competitive FPS games.

Eh, IDK. One hit kill snipers, sure. Snipers that are two hit kills, unless you get a headshot, and require a decent amount of time to reload, with no quickscopes, IMO are fine. If I get shot at in BF3, and hit, its 90% of the time in the leg or chest, and I'll take a fair bit of damage, but then I'm able to quickly jump behind the nearest cover before the guy reloads, and heal up while my friend in a Helicopter takes him out, or whilst I drop a medpack and get to sniping him with my Assault Rifle. Bullet drop also helps IMO, as it means across map instant deaths happen far less often. Provided enough measures are in place, I don't mind Snipers that much. Hell, I have more problems with machine guns that end up being near perfect accurassy 4 hit kill weapons that constantly fire about 3-4 shots per second for close to a minute. That's ridiculous IMO, though it all depends on where, when and what too.

 

[aguspal]

Any kind os Sniper Rifle in competitive FPS are cheap in my eyes.


Sorry, I just dont get how people blame Noobtubes, RPGS and whatnot to be cheap when a Sniper Rifle is pretty much the same thing as them, an unavoidable 1 hit kill death. The only difference is that the Sniper Rifles take a bit more skills than those, but the very fact that you have to relly than the Sniper misses to counter makes it VERY cheap. Add Quickscope and its even worse than the noobtube IMO. At least most people dont like the noobtubes, on the other hand snipers are apparently leet pros. NO. specially those that quickscope. I know its suppused to be a 1 hit kill weapon, but dying in 1 hit from nowhere, with nothing to learn from your death except "Damn, thougt luck" its NOT FUN. Nonono, I hate sniper rifles with a pasion. At least in competitive FPS games.

Eh, IDK. One hit kill snipers, sure. Snipers that are two hit kills, unless you get a headshot, and require a decent amount of time to reload, with no quickscopes, IMO are fine. If I get shot at in BF3, and hit, its 90% of the time in the leg or chest, and I'll take a fair bit of damage, but then I'm able to quickly jump behind the nearest cover before the guy reloads, and heal up while my friend in a Helicopter takes him out, or whilst I drop a medpack and get to sniping him with my Assault Rifle. Bullet drop also helps IMO, as it means across map instant deaths happen far less often. Provided enough measures are in place, I don't mind Snipers that much. Hell, I have more problems with machine guns that end up being near perfect accurassy 4 hit kill weapons that constantly fire about 3-4 shots per second for close to a minute. That's ridiculous IMO, though it all depends on where, when and what too.

Yes. But the very fact that even if a sniper rifle is actually a 2 hit kill unless it is a headshot, its still cheap. Why? Because with a good shoot (A very precise one, true, but) it can still be a 1 hit kill in the head.

Difficult? Sure.

Possible? Very, in the hands of a veteran player of whatever game we are talking about at the moment.

What could the killed one do to counter/react to this in any way at all? Well, I guess he could have hoped that the LUCK was on his side, and that either this seasoned pro sniper missed somehow, or he just happens to take cover as he passes by. Or the Sniper gets distracted by another enemy right at that moment...

Luck shouldt be a factor in competitive games. At least, not on them all, and specially NOT to the point of begin a game changer. (DISCLAIMER: This is coming from a person whom actually likes to play Smash bros Matches with items turned on. So no, I am not one of those guys. Hence why I belive that it does have its places in some games, but not in FPS games).

This "encounter" all *might* be a bit one sided for the sniper, dont you think?

Sure, I guess the enemy of the sniper should have avoided all the areas that are out doors and just fight IN doors. Except:

1)This pretty much limites the zone of play for the WHOLE enemy team. No outdoors or get killed by pro sniper, guys! (Well, unless the enemy team rushes with like 4 guys that 2/3 will probably die so the Sniper cant probably kill them all before they kill him... Thats if theres only 1 sniper, of course).

2)The whole game changing fact that 1) is, is all because of 1 GUY. Just one guy with a sniper can change the game so much like that. I cant think of another weapon that does this.

3)What if the map/level/campaing dosnt have/barely has indoors areas? (Granted, on this case It would pretty much be a sniping level, forcing you to use said weapon, otherwise get killed by snipers... this time more then 1. Forcing weapons when you have a whole set to choice from=Not good IMO. Althougt I guess you could partially blame the level desing for this one).


Compare to an encounter in close/medium range of assault rifles (or shotguns, Sub machine guns, or any combination of those... See? There IS weapon variation for once on those encounters! Unlike the sniper fest) far more interesting, and any of the two sides can win, depending on their skills, weapon choice and some litte old luck! (Yes, there is some luck here. Like, you can just happen to spray and get a headshot, much like snipers can. BUT theres a big difference here, and that is, if it was really a close/medium range encounter, then both sides could of have done this. Unlike Anything thats not snipers vs Snipers)

This all is in the account that, at least from what I have seen, not much games have snipers that actually take 2 hits to kill, unless in the head. Or if there *IS* one such sniper, theres always a 1 hit kill sniper anywhere-not-just-head types, thats have a few "downgrades" such as higher reload time, etc. That all dosnt matters if at the end you are going to kill someone in 1 hit.


...Well, I hope I didnt come as some kind of whiner noob, I just wanted to express this somewhere since a LONG time of online FPS gaming, and I really want to get opinions on those facts. I would suggest how to change the Snipers in a way that they can still be in game X, without being obsolete/removing it (Stuff like 3 hits to kill sure make the Sniper less broken, but then obviously no one would use it, and... cmon, since when snipers kill in 3 hits LOL, not beliable at all!)- This is why I belive the sniper its broken too. The CONCEPT of it, 1 hit kills, while obviously true in Real life, dosnt have a place in competitive FPS.

Again, this is all IMO, obvioulsy (I wonder how many times I wrote that damn word). Hoping to get counterarguments (Or really, anything at all to revive this thread will work. Its quite an interesting thread).

EDIT: For better reading.

 

[Shaved Apple]

Naruto Shippuden Generations. People spam and do most of their damage in awakening. I don't even consider those a tactic.

 

[Beat14]

Tf2 sending a trade request to an engineer then stabbing him whilst he is on it. Some one did this to me once, and I had a little laugh but was shocked some one would go that far...

Captcha: goes to eleven

they go so far it goes to 11 out of 10 for trying. (bit like my bad joke here)

 

[MasterJuice]

Legit tactics:
Teaming up with others to hunt down a loner.
Camping
Using a weapon as long as the game remains balanced.
Balancing your stats a certain way.
Hit and run.

Cheap tactics:
Ganking aka teaming up on when there is no chance for the victim to bring in help of their own. i.e. darksouls 3v1.

I would like to point out that "Teaming up with others to hunt down a loner" is the definition of ganking. Also, if memory serves me correctly, the only way to get in a 3v1 fight in Dark Souls is if you invade a person who has summoned, or will summon two people to help him. You are the invader, you deal with the consequences.

 

[sethisjimmy]

I don't really understand the problem with camping.
Spawn-camping, yes, that's bad because it's like the opposing team doesn't even have a chance, but regular, anywhere on the map camping? I don't see the problem.
If I get killed by a "camper" once, I then know where they are, and can attack accordingly.

Anyway for the most part I'm fairly sympathetic with those using supposed "cheap" tactics. For the large majority of the time, the game is at least somewhat balanced, meaning that if someone is using cheap tactics, there's generally a strategy to go about counteracting the tactic.

But, like others have said, it's a case-by-case issue, and it all depends on your opinion. Personally for me anything goes until it breaks the game so as to make it unwinnable for the other team. If it makes the game very hard to win, so be it, but when it becomes impossible that just spoils the fun I guess.

 

[Rblade]

it's the cheese argument. Those kind tactics ussually take a dice rolling approach to the game. If it isn't scouted or noticed on time it will win you games. But that is all it will ever do, win you games, you'll never really play the game. You ignore more then 90% of the depth of the experience. Playing against a cheese or a cheap tactic isn't interesting for anybody.

And if your puprose is to role a die and see if you can win, because you suck at chess. Well thats all well and good but your opponent is more interested in the challenges and would rather you roll dice against a computer or on your desk. He would rather play chess. So yes, you're ruining that part of the experience for him/her, and that pisses people off.

So I think it boils down to this. It's part off the game, but if you take it is the only part of the game your not doing it justice for yourself and your opponents and you would be better served trying every facet of the game. Let alone the increase of enjoyment others will get.

And yes, I can't help but stear towards the Starcraft 2 examples. I don't mind loosing games at all but from personal experience people that DT rush every game can go #$^ @ ^@$^@.

 

[omega 616]

snip

To me a cheap tactic is something that you know is broken in a game but you use that anyway, (sorry for this example but) in MW2 there were shot guns called "Model 1887" that in a certain set up was insane! It had ridiculous range, killed in 1 shot and was just plainly over powered .... so everybody was using it, otherwise they had no chance.

Later on was One Man Army noob tube, a class that let you fire mini nukes AKA nades across the map and you had infinite shots 'cos one man army let you refill all your nades, so you would fire 2 nades, refill your nades and fire 2 more. This meant you had unlimited ammo and your opponents had no chance to kill you.

What made it worse is, if 1 person used this set up the whole lobby turned into a nade lobbing match! 1 person would be killed by it, so that killed person would equip the class and kill another person, that killed person would repeat the last step ... till it was a 6 on 6 nade firing contest! Nades would rain from the sky!

 

[clippen05]

Quickscoping. That's pretty much it. I hate it with an undying passion and I rather remove it than online passes, DRM, or day 1 dlc.

 

[Naeras]

"Cheap tactics" are only a problem if the tactic in question is actually overpowered. Kangaroo-spamming in Company of Heroes is an example of this: really easy to do, really hard to deal with, and the strategy wasn't easy to punish even when you dealt with it properly(thankfully this got patched). Compare it to a 6-pool in SC2, which is a flat-out cheese: powerful if it catches someone by surprise, but unless the rush distances on the map are very short, scouting and some half-brained micro/macro means the 6-pooler loses instantly.

If there's a way to deal with the strategy, yet someone is whining about it still being cheap, that's just the person in question being a scrub.

 

[Dusty Donuts]

Tf2 sending a trade request to an engineer then stabbing him whilst he is on it. Some one did this to me once, and I had a little laugh but was shocked some one would go that far...

Captcha: goes to eleven

they go so far it goes to 11 out of 10 for trying. (bit like my bad joke here)

Someone tried to do that to me, but back before you had to go into the steam overlay for trading, you could toggle between the trade and the game pretty quickly and keep an eye on it.

Spoiler: What happened?

They failed.

They weren't even close to being a good spy, all I had to do was walk forwards and he missed.

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

Tf2 sending a trade request to an engineer then stabbing him whilst he is on it. Some one did this to me once, and I had a little laugh but was shocked some one would go that far...

Captcha: goes to eleven

they go so far it goes to 11 out of 10 for trying. (bit like my bad joke here)

Why would you stand out in the open while in the trade menu anyway? I always go into spectator mode or hide in the resupply room when trading.

 

[KarlMonster]

Not long ago I was playing... War Inc. Battlezone? When I was sniped for a one hit kill by some kid named "Cry More Newb" out of a particular hidey-hole. Alright fine, I had to get killed eventually but this kid is annoying. [I try not to do that myself, because I don't think its fair to those on my team that are actually trying to accomplish the objectives - if there are any.] So not long after, I took up a position where I could see into his particular hidey-hole and killed him with my assault rifle when he moved into his same old position. Let me tell you, he was so furious at being killed that way that he didn't stop typing insults for about 10 minutes. [That made my month.] Was he using a cheap tactic? Not really, he thought he had a good thing going until I countered it. I've seen much, much worse.

for the most part I'm fairly sympathetic with those using supposed "cheap" tactics. For the large majority of the time, the game is at least somewhat balanced, meaning that if someone is using cheap tactics, there's generally a strategy to go about counteracting the tactic.

But, like others have said, it's a case-by-case issue, and it all depends on your opinion. Personally for me anything goes until it breaks the game so as to make it unwinnable for the other team. If it makes the game very hard to win, so be it, but when it becomes impossible that just spoils the fun I guess.

You, sir. I am definitely making an example of you.
(Your affable attitude towards game balance, and lenience towards questionable tactics, will always draw more fire from me than a helicopter fleeing back to base for repair after taking a single RPG hit - thus squandering two precious team resources at the same time; a mobile, offensive vehicle and precious game time.) Cheap tactics can ruin the game for the entire other team, but obviously, that's their problem, not yours. Why should you be bummed if the game is unfair for the entire other team?

A number of people in this thread have come up with the interesting response that it is not a cheap tactic if the game mechanics allow it.

Basically, there is no such thing as a "cheap tactic", only tactics that haven't yet been countered. ...unless there is something horribly wrong with the game. While broken game mechanics is a possibility, that's far less likely than most players would think.

Bullshit.
There exist tactics that cannot reasonably be countered. The OP knife dive (or whatever) that someone complained about in this thread was also a problem in BF2. It is in the later game because the devs put it there. What is the counter for that? Carefully aimed gunfire isn't the answer because something strange happens to the hitbox on the diving player. I could possibly counter it by restricting my engagement of other players to only medium and long range, but the knife divers are careful to stay in cover and use a devastating long-range weapon until knife-time arrives. Therefore, the real counter for it is to stop playing and take a nap. Does that mean that there is something horribly wrong with the BF series? Oh yes, definitely. However, I have noticed that if the developers like to have the ability to do so-and-so in game, that thing is going to stay in the game, regardless of how badly it breaks balance.

Here is a bona fide, really cheap tactic; position yourself prone in a specific depression on the right map in a certain game. From there, you can majikally see (and shoot) over the edge of the depression, but other players cannot readily see you. There is such a spot on the COD4:WaW map 'Asylum' that allows you to do this. Oh, certainly there could be a counter for it, namely throwing a grenade there even if you cannot see anything there. Yet that isn't realistic when grenades are limited, and there are multiple other areas nearby for the player to be watching for threats. Alternatively, if you could host your own server and run custom maps, you could correct the offending map. However, as you probably know, private servers and custom maps are frowned upon by certain developers/publishers, so that may not be a possible counter, either.

That is not a game mechanic - broken or working, its a map glitch of some sort, but easily exploitable by players who take the time to discover it. That is where your "no such thing" claim breaks down. Yes. Yes, there are. Yes, there very much FREAKING are such things. There are a host of situations like this, where players who were actively looking for an exploit, did in fact find one. Players looking for cheap exploits will always be much more thorough than any game tester.

Does that mean that something is horribly wrong with the game? Yes and no. It is hard to find fault with developers/level designers for every glitch that they did not discover. This is where "horribly wrong" hinges on the will of the publisher to 'allow' it to be fixed - or not. I will point my finger squarely at the player who knowingly uses these exploits, and also at Mister Jimmy there, who is totally cool with exploits - as long as he isn't the one suffering because of it.

It's not cheap if anyone can do it, but camping is annoying...

Yes it is. Nobody forced you to use an exploit against the other team. You did that willingly.

I'd have to disagree.... I used to play on a server where there were no restrictions on the AWP. Half of each team would use it, and these were guys who spent hundreds of hours playing CS and using nothing but the AWP, and if you didn't us it it was no big deal. You could easily hang back and let the snipers whittle each other down for a bit before running in.

You are defeating your own argument. Lopende was grousing about CS being enjoyable until the Arctic Warfare Magnum comes out. The difference is that the two of you are trying to play two different games of CS. The CS he is playing is much more relaxed, and more fun for him. The CS you are playing is more challenging - but you normally played games where the AWM was a known element, and was expected to be in play. [Now, I stopped playing CS rather than switch to Source, and I know nothing about the new iteration, so my knowledge may be dated] There is nothing fundamentally wrong with wanting to play either way, but for him to try to play your game is going to be a serious buzzkill. The CS that I played was where I crept around silently with a shotgun, and scared the fertilizer out of other players - and they usually died at the same time. That wasn't really fair to players who weren't expecting it, but it also wasn't an exploit.

Off-Topic: I have no issue with the AWM - on AWM only maps. The only difference between the scout and the AWM is the majikal soul-eating bullet that the AWM uses. As you say, every other weapon has its unique characteristics - which can all be learned with practice. [Including using the P-90 effectively at long range.] From that perspective, it seems redundant to have a second bolt-action sniper rifle that is functionally identical to the Scout in all but damage dealt. And I'll spare you the further reasons I have against it.

Edit: I have personally reported my own post. I don't think I crossed any lines, but I don't wish to push any gray envelopes.
Or do any other kind of manual labor.