Because:almightywabbit said:
1. They are applicable in some games.
2. They may not be necessary, but they can still be of benefit.
3. Lots of people find teamwork and co-ordination like this to be fun.
That enough for you?
Real live tactics used online (can they work?)
- Thread starter jacobschndr
- Start date
1. They are applicable in some games.
2. They may not be necessary, but they can still be of benefit.
3. Lots of people find teamwork and co-ordination like this to be fun.
That enough for you?
Many a player has been kicked from my clan for charging right in on arma. no matter how many time's we tell them it's supposed to be realistic i.e unable to noscope someone while jumping in the air...(halo)
so yes tactics are used by my clan and we find it easier (but only if you have a headset)
so yes tactics are used by my clan and we find it easier (but only if you have a headset)
Just because something is not realistic doesn't mean it can't have real life theory applied to it. Charging in with no plan might be great, but you'll see them die a lot more than people who think it through. Want proof? Play on a map you don't know. Watch people who play it regularly stamp the hell out of you.almightywabbit said:
Think about it though. You know there are 3 enemies in a room with one exit. If you run in, chances are you'll get hit by three lots of bullets. If you throw a grenade in and then fire into the doorway, they will either be forced into the line of fire or blown up. Just because a game might not NEED the strategy doesn't mean that using it doesn't give you an advantage over those who run in blindly.
Breach and clear tactics usually work quite well. 2 guys take cover on either side of a door, a third opens a door, flashbangs the room and the other two run in and kill anyone in the room followed by the third.
Besides flanking and supressing fire (and also sending out cannon fodder) nope. Really, it doesn't work in games like those. They're to fast paced for such tactics.
It's not like by tactics anyone means logistics. Flanking works, stealth works, ambushes work,almightywabbit said:
Yes, you're right we have to make our fun, but you have to do that in all multiplayer games.
Despite that, it seems like you broadly agree with me[footnote]In the first point, you contradict me by saying it only applies to some games, which is exactly what I said.[/footnote] or have nothing to contradict me with [footnote] You begin the second point in agreement, so I could leave it there; however, you then go on to say it only lasts till the 'philistine gameplay idealism comes in'. While I am unsure as to what you actually mean, I will say that- based on my interpretation of the above quote- that's simply not true. Organised teams dominate disorganised teams in almost all team-based games. People leave lobbies and servers when they see a group of people all wearing the same tag, assuming that they'll be talking to eachother and working together, making for a much harder game for the average lone-wolf, run 'n' gun player.[/footnote], so I'll set aside your first two points and argue the third in off-topic spoilers.almightywabbit said:
It doesn't mean the game isn't fun as it is, you're just making it more fun.almightywabbit said:
I'm sure the really hardcore paintballers have a blast even when they just drop in in their jeans and t-shirts. But when they book the whole site in advanced, rent out loads of specialised kit, and plan some missions and objectives to complete and achieve, they have even more fun.
Hell, even toddlers realise this. They could just crawl into the carboard box and pretend it's a spaceship, but instead they put in a little more effort and draw in some fake buttons and windows, because it makes it more fun. The other kids might not understand why he bothers to when he doesn't have to, but he does it anyway because it enhances the utility gained from the box.
I hope you had fun emboldening all those 'fun's. Not really sure of the point there. Did my emboldening of the word offend you?
Tactis work, but only in a group of friends that you know.
Trying to work out tactics with a group of randoms = DERP DERP I ARE TEABAG YOO, LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Point is, most gamers out there are asshats with no teamwork ability. Which really makes it sweet when you find someone that can actually handle that.
Trying to work out tactics with a group of randoms = DERP DERP I ARE TEABAG YOO, LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Point is, most gamers out there are asshats with no teamwork ability. Which really makes it sweet when you find someone that can actually handle that.
Horde never loses bs. If they do they're a disgrace. In the 50+ AB games I have fought in I haven't witnessed horde to ever lose bs. And it isn't hard to stop a person from caping flags, dot them or anything because damage breaks the cap.Valiance said:
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: Of all the things a rogue can have, FUCKING SAP? It almost gives their class a use.
Why so hostile? On my battlegroup, as it would in every battlegroup, it depends on the game. And we go ST --> BS --> Farm and start with a 3 cap dividing them every game I join. I think I have like a 80%/20% win/loss ratio in AB, and most of them we've had BS. It just depends on the battlegroup.Bulletinmybrain said:
Also, I find it hilarious that considering cheap shot, kidney shot, dismantle, blind, Prepping to do all of this again, blind being on a lower cooldown than 2 minutes, 6k envenoms on plate with 800+ resil, more survivability than most plate classes with CloS, vanish, sprint, etc, that sap is the first thing that comes to your mind to make a rogue useful.
I mean, it takes, what, 2 non-retards to cast a flare to get him out of stealth once the guy next to him gets sapped? Also, some aoe damage doesn't break capping, some dots also don't break capping. And that's my point, whoever would be doing that should be CC'd.
There is a subgenre of multiplayer that was very popular for Call of Duty: United Offensive and Call of Duty 2 known as "tactical realism".jacobschndr said:
There were many TR clans, 4 of which had over 100 active members. The clans were military styled with most requiring new recruits to go through "boot camps" run by clan leaders before being accepted into the clan.
The clans practiced military styled tactics and only fought on large maps. Small engagements of 8v8 were common but had matches of upwards of 16v16 with a degree of regularity. Matches were known for each side using real-world tactics. In pick-up scrimmages there would be 30-minutes for setting up tactics before the match began.
I was an officer and chief tactician in the best TR clan. The tactics we came up with were very innovative and very fun. It was without a doubt the best gaming experience of my life.
The scene kind of died with COD World at War and MW2 with the small shitty maps that constricted the use of real life tactics and were set up for close-range high-speed fights. Great for addrenaline soaked fast-twitch gaming sessions, bad for tactics.
I'll probobly go back to tactical realism when Red Orchestra 2 comes out and we can do that kind of stuff again.
I'm going to say no because in Real Life, alot of Tactics are developped around the principle that if you get shot, you are done. On the flip side, most online games allow you to come back to life multiple times, so things like "Charge forward and shoot alot" work much better.
In games like Gears of War where there is no spawning, real life tactics would probably do well.
In games like Gears of War where there is no spawning, real life tactics would probably do well.
My guess is that in games like Call of Duty (dump you in a map, you kill the most people, go) these strategies wouldn't work out too well, but in a more co-operative/team-based game (TF2) these become much more commonplace, especially if each person has a pre-defined class and role. It really does depend, however, on what you're playing and who you're playing it with.
Good luck. I try this every time I play an online shooter and nobody ever listens. When they do, we end up winning, but it's really rare that anyone bothers. Still, I don't play TF2 (since I don't actually have it yet) so it's probably different there...
Yes and no. In a realistic game (think some of the unforgivingly difficult Rainbow Six games, or Ghost Recon), where you can take basically two shots before death, and aren't a walking tank, you have to use real tactics. Flanking, cover, even the way one clears a room.
But, in almost any game where you can absorb fifteen bullets, or your health regenerates, or you respawn, the fear of death simply doesn't exist enough to make those tactics worthwhile.
But, in almost any game where you can absorb fifteen bullets, or your health regenerates, or you respawn, the fear of death simply doesn't exist enough to make those tactics worthwhile.
The short, non-useful answer is fairly simple - they can if the game is designed in such a way to allow them to work.
All real-life small-unit tactics are based on a handful of very simple principles - namely, achieve a larger volume of fire than your enemy in order to allow your own men freedom to maneuver and ultimately destroy the enemy.
The problem of course, comes in the concept of volume of fire and maneuver. In a game like gears of war for example, it takes an enormous quantity of fire to bring down a single opponent and as such, simple volume of fire is not terribly effective in the general sense. Yet even in this game you find that while volume is not terribly important, relative lethality is and as such, any time you outnumber your opposition (the only way in the game to achieve any kind of fire superiority if player skill is equal) you will find that the odds of compleating any sort of maneuver increase dramatically.
Most FPS games however favor neither volume of fire or maneuver - instead they rely almost entirely on the careful application of fire by individual players. Modern Warfare (or the sequel for that matter), a game that seems like a prime candidate for the application of the most general prinicples of small unit combat, has a combination of mechanics where most game modes are actually openly hostile to any attempt to apply real life tactics. While lethality is certainly present (and as such volume of fire becomes important), the freedom of maneuver becomes almost entirely irrelevent. Distances in the game are so short and cover so ineffective that it is rare any gun battle lasts more than a few seconds. Assuming a target(s) could be suppressed, sending other players to flank is almost certainly a wasted effort. In the time it takes for the unit to maneuver, the fight is almost certainly over. Worse still, the most commonly played game modes result in a constantly shifting battlespace who's only real tactical features are areas of varying inherent danger when attempting to transverse them. If you consider that only a handful of the game modes offer players a compelling reason to stand their ground and fight, you realize that the game most people play most of the time has very little in common with scenarios in which real life tactics were developed. Having proper lethality matters little when there is little freedom of or incentive to maneuver.
Oddly, while the most general principles rarely make their way into games, a different (but related) set of tactics can and in fact often is applied to games like Battlefield - that is the principle of combined arms. As any player who has spent much time with the series will attest, any attack tends to be more successful when players properly coordinate the available assets. When a single tank (or even small group) attacks a stronghold, the result is usually a few casualties on the defending team and an enormous pile of wreckage for the attackers. If a pure infantry assault is attempted, the result is generally a bit more successful but often gives the same result. Yet, somehow, when combined an infantry/tank assault tends to be more successful than the sum of it's parts might imply. The reason is relatively simple - the biggest danger the tanks face is anti-armor weapons - the infantry accompanying the tanks are ideally suited to destroying such annoyances. The biggest danger facing the infantry is machine gunners and riflemen from the defenders - a problem that the tanks are ideally suited to face. When properly applied, a combined arms offensive allows an assaulting (or defending) force to minimize their weaknesses and as such maximize their offensive potential.
Of course, such things are rarely well coordinated and few games actually allow for a true combined arms approach. Often, it is simply by sheer luck that such a tactic is attempted - a great enough quantity of players descend on a point and haul with them their preferred (or smiply available) assets. Such a move generally succeeds, both because of the strength of the combined arms approach to combat and because when it occurs it is usually the result of a significant portion of a team being in the same spot.
Of course, everyone uses some variety of tactic when they play an FPS game, unless they simply act at random and hope for the best. In your average game of battlefield for example, you'll find that most players naturally seem to hold a basic understanding of a few principles. Snipers for example, generally understand that they need to try and occupy a vantage that has wide sight lines and preferably overlooks an avenue that enemy infantry are likely to cross while players who favor armor tend to understand that they need to use their tank at the points of greatest resistance for maximum effect. Without any real coordination however, the inevitable result is games are won and lost primarily because one team either has significantly more skill on average or simply because the particular collection of players on one side just happen to prefer tactics that support one another. A well coordinated team can often be far more effective than a highly skilled group of individuals. To put it in perspective, while snipers might be useful in certain moments in a game of battlefield bad company, if you have been pushed all the way to the final point, chances are quite excellent that you would better serve your team using a weapon that favors close quarters combat over one that favors long ranged precision.
All real-life small-unit tactics are based on a handful of very simple principles - namely, achieve a larger volume of fire than your enemy in order to allow your own men freedom to maneuver and ultimately destroy the enemy.
The problem of course, comes in the concept of volume of fire and maneuver. In a game like gears of war for example, it takes an enormous quantity of fire to bring down a single opponent and as such, simple volume of fire is not terribly effective in the general sense. Yet even in this game you find that while volume is not terribly important, relative lethality is and as such, any time you outnumber your opposition (the only way in the game to achieve any kind of fire superiority if player skill is equal) you will find that the odds of compleating any sort of maneuver increase dramatically.
Most FPS games however favor neither volume of fire or maneuver - instead they rely almost entirely on the careful application of fire by individual players. Modern Warfare (or the sequel for that matter), a game that seems like a prime candidate for the application of the most general prinicples of small unit combat, has a combination of mechanics where most game modes are actually openly hostile to any attempt to apply real life tactics. While lethality is certainly present (and as such volume of fire becomes important), the freedom of maneuver becomes almost entirely irrelevent. Distances in the game are so short and cover so ineffective that it is rare any gun battle lasts more than a few seconds. Assuming a target(s) could be suppressed, sending other players to flank is almost certainly a wasted effort. In the time it takes for the unit to maneuver, the fight is almost certainly over. Worse still, the most commonly played game modes result in a constantly shifting battlespace who's only real tactical features are areas of varying inherent danger when attempting to transverse them. If you consider that only a handful of the game modes offer players a compelling reason to stand their ground and fight, you realize that the game most people play most of the time has very little in common with scenarios in which real life tactics were developed. Having proper lethality matters little when there is little freedom of or incentive to maneuver.
Oddly, while the most general principles rarely make their way into games, a different (but related) set of tactics can and in fact often is applied to games like Battlefield - that is the principle of combined arms. As any player who has spent much time with the series will attest, any attack tends to be more successful when players properly coordinate the available assets. When a single tank (or even small group) attacks a stronghold, the result is usually a few casualties on the defending team and an enormous pile of wreckage for the attackers. If a pure infantry assault is attempted, the result is generally a bit more successful but often gives the same result. Yet, somehow, when combined an infantry/tank assault tends to be more successful than the sum of it's parts might imply. The reason is relatively simple - the biggest danger the tanks face is anti-armor weapons - the infantry accompanying the tanks are ideally suited to destroying such annoyances. The biggest danger facing the infantry is machine gunners and riflemen from the defenders - a problem that the tanks are ideally suited to face. When properly applied, a combined arms offensive allows an assaulting (or defending) force to minimize their weaknesses and as such maximize their offensive potential.
Of course, such things are rarely well coordinated and few games actually allow for a true combined arms approach. Often, it is simply by sheer luck that such a tactic is attempted - a great enough quantity of players descend on a point and haul with them their preferred (or smiply available) assets. Such a move generally succeeds, both because of the strength of the combined arms approach to combat and because when it occurs it is usually the result of a significant portion of a team being in the same spot.
Of course, everyone uses some variety of tactic when they play an FPS game, unless they simply act at random and hope for the best. In your average game of battlefield for example, you'll find that most players naturally seem to hold a basic understanding of a few principles. Snipers for example, generally understand that they need to try and occupy a vantage that has wide sight lines and preferably overlooks an avenue that enemy infantry are likely to cross while players who favor armor tend to understand that they need to use their tank at the points of greatest resistance for maximum effect. Without any real coordination however, the inevitable result is games are won and lost primarily because one team either has significantly more skill on average or simply because the particular collection of players on one side just happen to prefer tactics that support one another. A well coordinated team can often be far more effective than a highly skilled group of individuals. To put it in perspective, while snipers might be useful in certain moments in a game of battlefield bad company, if you have been pushed all the way to the final point, chances are quite excellent that you would better serve your team using a weapon that favors close quarters combat over one that favors long ranged precision.