Cheap tactics in competitive games

[Tippy]

I'll give you cheap tactics in BF3 - on the absolute shitfest that is Metro (Conquest or TDM) - picking support/assault, equipping grenades/M320 and spamming into the choke points regardless of whether they're hitting enemies or not. I don't care what you call it, it is a cheap tactic. There is literally nothing to do but M320/grenade-spam back, dropping smoke doesn't help because they simply keep spamming explosives into the smoke (they're not exactly aiming at anything) and killing you.

The entire purpose of Metro is to quickly level guns/attachments (otherwise it's really boring as fuck), but countless people still stick to M320/grenade spam all day.
It's about as fun as watching paint dry. I could set up an auto-clicking program to do their job.

Why do they do it?
Because they can.
Because it gets them kills.
Most importantly, because the server rules allow it.

And if the server rules allow it, you bet people will do it (this applies to any game).

 

[Brendan Stepladder]

And I never saw the problem with camping, in most games anyway. It's so easy to kill a camper, much easier than getting someone that's always moving around intelligently.

For that reason I don't see camping as a good tactic either. If anyone in the enemy team knows what they are doing you're gonna get owned.

I can only agree. Unless the camper comes with exceptional awareness of his surroundings he is going to die. Never saw a problem with campers. Unless when I am called a camper because I hear you coming and lay an ambush *sigh*.

People only get mad when they can't kill campers with the usual set-up they have to kill non-campers.

That said, unbalanced games like COD openly welcome campers, thanks to the fact that all weapons kill near-instantaneously.

 

[Exocet]

The cheap tactics for me are the ones that require no skill whatsoever to pull off, and are just too successful. This is due to faulty balance, but still, spamming blatantly overpowered units, or using an exploit to get the upper hand(which is a tactic) is cheap, and no fun.

Example: sitting by a box of ammo and spamming grenades into choke points. That's fucking cheap.

 

[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.

 

[WanderingFool]

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.

Camping is more a problem in objective-based gamemodes. Some cases, like camping your teams flag is more acceptable. It when camping is done for the allmighty K/D ratio that people will *****.

 

[The Wykydtron]

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.

 

[PinkiePyro]

Sounds like you came across a sniper that didn't fire-and-move and was a sore loser about it.

pretty much this in real combat snipers move about to different spots to not blow their cover(unless they are serial killers)
what you did was a legit tactic


also I say camping is a legit tactic
but spawn camping is not

opening up another can of worms
whats everyone's opinion on distraction sprays in TF2

 

[Dusty Donuts]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the G18 in MW2. There were 20 billion server plugins to block the players from using the darn things. Now, I played on my friends server, so we usually got as good as we gave (i.e. we screwed everyone over with every "cheap" tactic in the book, and it was bloody hilarious), but I never had an issue with people who killed me constantly except for one guy using a FAMAS, and he was actually good at the game. Every time some tactic came along, it was counterable. That goes back to the guy who I can't be bothered to find and quote who said that most tactics are can be countered but people are too stuck up in their own tactics to change and so, it's called cheap.

whats everyone's opinion on distraction sprays in TF2

Too small to count for anything. The area affected and the fact that it's usually just some kind of porn makes it easily skippable. If you fall for it, that's your bad luck then. Granted, I don't think it's a legit tactic, and it's probably just some person having a laugh at your expense, it's really not that hard to avoid falling for it.

 

[direkiller]

whats everyone's opinion on distraction sprays in TF2

It's a legitimate strategy

 

[Kargathia]

In case you didn't know: there is a golden rule to multiplayer gaming. If you win it's balance, if you lose it's a retarded OP cheap n00b win.

I mostly hate snipers because I suck with them, I'll admit that. I do agree that I hate quick scoping the most. I can't blame someone for exploiting a game mechanic though. Remove someone's ability to do that, and the game could be more balanced.

Personally I'd say that snipers simply don't have a place in close-quarter FPS games - but I'm perfectly ok with that people capable of reliably hitting at ranges past 200m are a force to be feared.

 

[Mirroga]

I always don't get the term cheap in competitive games. If it's a very annoying, abused, and a dominating strategy, then you would use such strats to win. It would be the game makers' fault for not balancing such things or never had the foresight for these dominating strategies. An example would be the infamous Noob Tube and the Combat Knife in FPS. If they care for the balance and fairness of the multiplayer, they would've nerfed or removed them. But alas, it's a viable strategy if they are never removed in the pool.

In other words, if it's a strategy or tactic that is still within the gameplay, and the balance providers have no intent to nerf or impair such strategies, then it is a viable and fair tactic. Cheap? No. Annoying? Yes. Makes the game unfun? Definitely.

Don't forget:
Competitive Gaming = Serious = Unfun to Victims = Posibly Unfun to Winners(when they are THAT serious)

 

[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.