Part 2 Season 5: Game modes, competition ladders and more

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Which MP said your opinion was worthless?

[BTs_ST u RM[SER]]

    Try CB-style Warzone. Then come here and complain about why it won't work. Until you try it, your opinion is worthless.

   BTs_ST u RM[SER]

PS--C'mon I try out all the new mods, I was excited every time the MP mod was updated, I am first in line to try out X1|'s mods (and Xaiver's pre X1| mods) and, (straddling the fence), mainmans CQB mods.  I am not anti-MP by any means.

[l ! l Dutchman]

    Why not establish or propagate LMS rules, Warzone rules, and possibly Siege rules, then let clans decide what to play in CBs?

Altough the idea is good, I don't think it will work.

Example:
Clan 1 is very good at defensive playing*cough* camping *cough* and plays LMS only.
Clan 2 is more into fast action and plays Warzone (or without sensors, or Hamburger Hill).

What if Clan 2 wants to challenge Clan 1 ? What do you play then? What if Clan 1 refuses to play Warzone or Clan 2 doesn't want to play LMS?

I think we should stick to 1 Official League with 1 gametype. Let's keep it simple.... we are gaming here ;-)

[|MP|Buccaneer]

    Try CB-style Warzone. Then come here and complain about why it won't work. Until you try it, your opinion is worthless.

   BTs_ST u RM[SER]

PS--C'mon I try out all the new mods, I was excited every time the MP mod was updated, I am first in line to try out X1|'s mods (and Xaiver's pre X1| mods) and, (straddling the fence), mainmans CQB mods.  I am not anti-MP by any means.

Did you happen to miss the "CB-Style" part in there?  

And, if you had tried it, then your opinion wasn't worthless, was it?  I didn't see anything there with your name on it, and it was on what, page 4?  So, which was it?  If you had tried CB style, why do you assume that message was for you?

And I haven't asked you why are you anti-MP, I've asked you why you keep making this about MP, when it never has been.

[Ssickboy]

I think Dutch is right concerning the multiple game types.  It's gotta be one or the other.  similar situations happened in the last finals where MOD had an advantage playing 3v3 and we had an advantage playing 4v4.  Setting up the game was difficult.  We ended up switching off.  We could maybe consider switching out the agreed gametypes (somehow) during a cb.  Sounds difficult.  

Sturm... please keep the posts and dialogues comin.  I'm listening.  

 

[.::|N|SOC]

I don't know any of the DAMN guys well, and I sure haven't ever had a chat with Mauti, so I don't want to suggest that I actually KNOW what he's doing right now....

... but I have to think that he's either ready to trash this whole damn ladder out of frustration...

... or that he sits in front  this thread, bourbon in hand, laughing his @ss off.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Actually, I think I read he was taking a vacation right about now.

[Aramarth]

The evolution of this thread has started to make me sick.  The goal of this thread is to do one thing only: make the ladder more fun and competitive (these two things unquestionably go together).  Now, as I and others with me see it, camping is the biggest downside to gaming in this ladder, period.

I ask you all to respond to that statement before reading the rest of this post.

Ok, so what is the best way to stop camping.  Well, the obvious number 1 easiest way (and I would add the most combat-realistic) is to turn off the F%$&^ing sensors.  They may indeed exist in real life as I am sure many of you will point out, but troops use their eyes not crap like sensors.  Oh yes, an anti-terror team (aka R6, RS, and RvS) DOES use sensor equip, and constantly, that is their type of mission.  GhR, however, is special forces infantry, NOT your precious classic anti-terror team.  They go, see, shoot, blow stuff up, etc.  Use the single player mode and see the difference in how you play between this and the older games!  Special forces fight outnumbered almost exclusively, and they rely upon superior firepower and surprise to gain victory.  Anti-terror teams use surprise and timing, but they rely more on technology and knowledge of how-far-that-guy-is-from-the-door.  Have most of you read the book that started all this?  Note right now, such units have no time for sensors, nor to set up around a building of hair-trigger terrorists who they need to kill before the hostages eat lead.

Now I can see all your faces.  I am sure that one of you at least will not read this paragraph and begin your thread by ranting about how much sensors ought to stay around.  This section here is notice to all that any who bring that up are idiots who miss the point and lack proper reading skills.

I know and accept that sensors are here, and I don't make a big stink about it do I?  It will not change and I know this, I do not try to change that which will not.  So what is the point of this huge post (like so many others)?  The goal of this thread is to do one thing only: make the ladder more fun and competitive (these two things unquestionably go together).   Oh dear... a tie-in to my opening statement... someone call my high school english teacher!!!   No, seriously.  The only way that the majority of you will accept an anti-camping change is to have it forced on you, because even if you hate camping, subconsciously you think you have the right to do so.  This also will never change.

What we can change, fellow gamers, is how useful or easy is it to camp.  Sure, someone could take the warzone and sit there, but the likelihood of success involved in a smoke rush is greatly less than the chance of success in a first-kill sensor-net camp.  To get to the smoke first requires you to run across the map like a chicken with its head cut off (yes, for you city types, they do run around after they are beheaded.  On one occasion, my poor mother was scarred for life at the age of 5...). I have not seen it work reliably.  After you see your enemies do it the first time, you know to expect it again, and you can be ready to gun them down when they try.  This is even short of mentioning how likely it is that they will get the right spawn for their rush.

So finally, the ultimatum.  One of you will start in on me about "well then it is random! who the victor will be is based upon the spawn." I have heard that before, and I would respond that only if you participate in such methods of thinking are they true.  The days of "but people will..." should end right now on this bl.  Throwing the blame like that instead of just policing yourselves is quite childish.  If you do not smoke rush, then half of the random winner statement is dead already.

The guys with only one play in the playbook can't win anymore.  With two ways to win as warzone presents, the smart and skilled will win the day, not the pathological rusher or sensor-net camper.  Isn't that what this is all about?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Aramarth, give me back my soap box this instant!

Nicely put, and back on topic.

I'd also like to add, that since this is talking about suggestions, that if there are maps where one spawn point has an obvious advantage in proximity to the base, then we can eliminate those maps from competition, right?

[Jeb]

i agree with aramarth's post. However i think for the first season there should be a seperate ladder for warzone than LMS...

my feelings on warzone with no spawns has changed a bit, mostly because i look at warzone as a game in which you take the smoke at all costs, and not as a camper buster for lms games. If you want to play a king of the hill style game turn on spawns, but if you want to speed up a LMS game add smoke.
Personaly i'm not the type to go and hide when the ods are entirely against me, its more of an even chance of taking down scattered enemys who are running around looking for you, than camping somewhere and being located after 1 kill. However i see lots of people do this in cbs when they are the last one on their team, simply because a draw is better than a loss.

[Fusion]

Well im doing what I tell others NOT to do..
Im posting without reading all the posts.

I have been on Vacation for 2 weeks so I missed alot of conversations about this.

I would NOT suggest that the DAMN Battle League ONLY use the Warzone mod for cbing. I really like playing on the DAMN BL but I like playing regular LMS cbs.

As for the camping issue, I think we proved last season that it doesnt matter if a team camps, we will find a way around it. So i personally dont care about the camping issue. I will come and get you, and if you keep doing it game after game after game.. Well i will give you a taste of your own medicine.........

Mauti you have a great ladder, dont screw it up  by just doing Warzone CBs please.

[[GG] Entropy]

Hi everyone,

Just a few thoughts on the subject...  

I haven't tested the Warzone mod yet but, conceptually, it sounds as if it (the zero-spawn mode) would work.  And, I do see some amounts of "pure" GhR as being flawed in gameplay; LMS being the focal point in this forum.

As far as compromise is concerned (this may bleed a bit into another topic)...if the community is divided on the matter (though Mauti has final say, of course), how about the following scenario:

1.  Make BOTH LMS & Warzone part of the regular season format, on equal footing.

2. Make it a requirement for all clans to play a *minimum number* of games during the season (Since *some* teams retained very high stat credentials by playing *very* few games).

3.  Require all clans to divide their mininum season game quota evenly down the middle between both LMS & Warzone.

??Do this for one season, then tally all user input.  Then, for the tournament, do something similar.  Perhaps the majority will want one, or the other....or both.??

Just an idea... ; )

[PLOPje]

ok I didnt took my time to read everything its pretty much but heres some comment.

I played warzone and its cool
when you have the warzone its not camping its defending
the attackers know where you are so a good placed nade or rocket or a good teamassault can take out the defenders.
The defenders can chip you off if your running in like a chicken without a head but cant take you if you attack them from all sides at the same time.
So you need some good defending or attacking to win this game
so give this game a chance

[[TRIBE]Meatwagon]

why is there such a backlash about camping. good teams can defeat a camp. and good teams use camps. there are some boards in which teams camp on, we have and have gotten beat. the point of the game is stradegy, and if a team is using camping tactics, just  learn how to beat it.
lms the way it is, in my opinion is ok. its the point system that needs some thought. next someone will say the oicw shouldnt be used...lol...

[one Rampage]

as a few ppl have pointed out in their posts - is the camping issue really that big a deal in cbs? i for one like the pace of ghr as it is and i see no reason to "speed things up" if i want a faster game - i'll play another game and i think alot of ppl agree w me. Is time really an issue in the ladder? sure the games can haul out way too long, but thats the nature of this game and one of the things that make it so cool. if the majority of the community are in such a hurry to finish a cb or a game...well lets change the ammount of games played  in a game vs another clan then.

sure warzone is cool and i can see positive things about it, but i just come back to - if someone wins a game camping, well then i have to change my strategy for the next game. i'm almost never in a rush to get out of a cb, so time is not an issue either. if i do have to go...i'll sub.

as i mentioned in one of my earlier posts regard this issue - the clans that topped the ladder this past season did not camp. unless it was strategicly klever do do so(whatever the reason) the lesser clans that had camping as a strategy....well they lost now didnt they?

then i have another question. why is it that MP brought this suggestion out into the open? and not one of the clans that topped the ladder?(no insult MP, just curious) if it was BTs, c|, |n|, mod etc that complained about ppl camping them and came up with something like this, i would understand that to a certain degree. but i dont understand y MP has a problem with camping or time in a cb.

im probably repeating myself here...but after having played warzone(and yes i liked it) i still think LMS is the way to go.

thanx

[one] Rampage

live everyday as if its your last

[Mr. Lothario]

     GhR is a quasi-realistic military game. Therefore, camping is the most powerful tactic. Real soldiers don't run in screaming, they move carefully and try to let the enemy come to them. GhR is designed to support that style of play.

     I have played in very short CBs with the LMS rules. I've never claimed that LMS CBs are ALWAYS slow as hell. But between clans of equal skill, it is a game in which the goal is to get one kill and then save that advantage. Thus, we have five-hour CBs. I have no interest in playing for that long, and I'm surprised that other people do.

     Warzone removes the ability to get one kill and then hide for the win because Warzone requires you to kill every member of the opposing team to win. Warzone makes camping in a hidden little spot off the beaten path unviable because of the inclusion of the warzone. Warzone forces the game to play out fully, rather than one to two minutes of action with both teams trying to get a point advantage followed by eight to nine minutes of both teams camping and not moving--the winning team because they don't want to give the other team kills, and the losing team because they can't attack a fortified position. After putting in over 30 hours to play around a dozen LMS CBs, nearly all of which played out in precisely the same way as though scripted, LMS CBs have quite lost their luster for me.

     LMS CBs demonstrate how good your clan is at lying in wait. Warzone CBs demonstrate how good your clan is.

[Jeb]

Most of us MPs are old school RS/R6 players and have been quite active on this board and with mauti in discussions over the battle league. Frankly its not an "MP clans decision" i personally don't think that it should be the only ladder for GHR. As for us being vocal about this mod, we were one of the first clans to play this mod on our servers, and its great fun. I just don't see its place as the only ladder for GHR, especially since its not greatly tested.

A few of us are active in topics on suggestions for the next season because we came up with the purse/combat points system, and are glad to try to help out in the downfalls of the ladder.

and

then i have another question. why is it that MP brought this suggestion out into the open?

note the first post...

For Ghost Recon we have to think about a competition ladder where camping doesn't have a chance: Siege won't work because one clan has to camp: but Hamburger Hill and the Warzone game mode could be useful: could someone point out the differences between HH and Warzone pls!?

I would love to set a 5min limit and 3 respawns: I know 5mins sound short to recapture the zone but on the other side HH and Warzone are mods that run until the last second of the timer so a 10min time limit would be too long. -> average cb time with chatting and set up between 60 and 80mins with 10min time limit >< 30 - 50mins with 5min time limit. The task would require extremly fast assaulting and securing the hot spot and much more teamwork than Last Man Standing.

[Ssickboy]

Loth just desribed the scenario really well.  

Rampage, i know its a long thread but you should take a look at all the previous posts, along with testing.  c| does favor the warzone... I think more than MP even.  |n| merged into c|, and the ex-|n| guys favor warzone too.

the trend has been this:  initially most people resist to changing to WZ, and then after actually playing with WZ (0 spawns) minds change.  You need to see first hand what we're talking about.

Last Season:
When we played lowered rated teams in LMS we just barreled through whether they were camping or not (not as fun as it sounds).  But the real issue is when two evenly matched teams are battling.  that's when it becomes a serious camp off.  And yes the c| vs Bts match was a major camp fest which unfortunately we have gotten used to.      

Jeb, i dont want to discredit yur post, but I have seen warzone played quite a bit and feel confident about it.  But if you mean testing it all the way through an actual season, then I see what you mean.  What specifically are you thinking about?  I see possible problems if there are two seperate ladders.  

[Mr. Lothario]

     I've seen really bad, showstopping bugs in Warzone, but only when playing with more than two teams. With two teams, there are no serious bugs that I've encountered or heard of, which bodes well for its fitness as an official mode.

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

Like what was said in prev. post.... GhR is a game not of running in but of taking your time and finding the enimies. Thats why there are snipers and other eliments of the game. In my opinion, Ii feel that I would want to keep the CB as close to actual battle as possible, and how many times has anyone ever heard of a REAL battle lasting only a few min. For players like me (who have played RS/R6, just not on the mac ladders) GhR is more my style, hunting out your oponents and trying to stay alive doing it. NOT tring to keep a smoked up area longer than the other guys.... thats just like arcade stuff to me. GhR was supposed to simulate specail forces recon team tactics.. and for anyone who has done any type of research into this subject (in which I do for fun) knows that they do not just go running in. They use snipers/scouts (yes that is what the US military calls there sniper teams) to scout out the enimies and then ether takes a shot or tells the team where the enimies are at and the best way to ge to them. I just feel the the warzone option would take away from the Gameplay the GhR was supposed to be. But thats just my opinion...I might be wrong