|
|
Post by ghost on May 23, 2008 16:38:17 GMT -5
Something I've noticed about DT. The other team always seems to be in one of two modes. Either they stick together or they are flankers and try to bring you down from behind. My thought is the best strategy to use is whatever they aren't using. Here are my thoughts: - If both teams stick together, then it's whomever is best at a BR battle. It's easy to lose this if they have power weapons or equipment.
- If both teams flank, then it's alot of 1v1 battles and the better BR wins.
- Teams that stick together will usually chase an individual player, making it easier to flank or bait and switch
- teams that flank are tough to beat, but if you know they are going to flank, you can usually suprise the flanker by cutting him off.
Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by shogun on May 25, 2008 14:30:27 GMT -5
I believe the toughest team to beat is a team who sticks together. Even if my team decides to stick together we normally seperate without realizing it. This means 2v1 in their favor more often with the added benefit of the bait and switch or a respawner catching you just as you are about to finish one of them of etc...
On top of this normally teams who stick together will get up by even one and set up in a hard to get to place. On Snowbound they will be in back garage or under a base, Construct they are in lobby with a sword and so forth. This makes it very hard to come back because you end up feeding them kills but if you don't press they will just wait the game out. In my experience the only way to beat this team is to stay away from them and hope they come out from impatience and then you have a shot of getting up and gaining the upper hand and position.
|
|
|
|
Post by boulder94 on Jun 4, 2008 23:21:03 GMT -5
I would agree that it is tough to battle against a team that has weapon and map control. Got spanked on Blackout because we lost shotty and snipe to them and they already had sword. So we couldn't sneak in or come across middle. It was pretty lop sided once we lost control. Long story short, we didn't know what to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by shogun on Jun 5, 2008 8:47:29 GMT -5
I would agree that it is tough to battle against a team that has weapon and map control. Got spanked on Blackout because we lost shotty and snipe to them and they already had sword. So we couldn't sneak in or come across middle. It was pretty lop sided once we lost control. Long story short, we didn't know what to do. We've all been there where the other team has control of the weapons and the position. No matter how you look at it there's not much you can do if they are patient and smart. If they set up and just wait out the game they have an easy win. 1-0 is still a win. If they get impatient and come out, they are giving you a chance to take the lead. If you get impatient and rush in to a great defensive spot, you are just feeding them kills making it harder and harder to come back. If you wait around too long and aren't aggressive enough you'll notice there's only a minute left in the game and you are down by more than 1 or 2. I'm not sure what the best solution is. A few games that Sparhawk and I have had on Snowbound, the other team was hammering us. They would set up in the back of garage, which is almost impossible to assault, either way you come from they can put shots on you and then just duck to the other side of the shield. Then if you push past it you run into a grenade. Or they would get some maulers and hide in the bases. We would wait to collect some plasma grenades and try to get some sticks. After a bit of doing this they would get up by a ridiculous amount, like 13-2 or something. Then they would come out and try to finish us off. I assume they thought we weren't any good, but the truth is they just had better weapons for the situation, ie they had maulers in an enclosed area. Once they came out we started ripping into them. We all have very decent mid-long range aim. They just kept coming at us over and over. I think their thought process was based on aggravation "These guys suck, we were beating them by like 10, their just getting lucky and I know I can out shoot them." Wrong. I'm not sure on specifics but I think we won by about 5. Another game was more of the same, we were down something near the same like 11-2. We said, "Screw it, let's just rush them and have some fun and get this game over with." It worked. We just had fun and played ultra aggressive and ended up coming out on top. We have also done the same and gotten beat very badly. So all in all, the moral is get the lead in the beginning and make them play your game. If you don't you are forced to play theirs and you can only hope they are idiots. |
|
|
|
Post by sparhawk on Jun 5, 2008 10:54:14 GMT -5
I also think the tougher team is the one that sticks together. In many maps it seems like you spawn away from your teammate too often (unless he is in a drainer then you spawn next to him). This leads to a lot of 2 on 1 vs your team. I am comfortable in most 1 v 1. Flanking works well as an offense, andI would agree is the most useful against a team that sticks together...... as long as your teammate is there to support you. You really need to communicate about where you are and when to start the attack. Taking fire from multiple directions is a good thing. If you flank always make sure your teamamte can support you so you do not end up 1 v 2. I have a bit of trouble playing flank, because at times, I lose track of my teammate. I prefer the sticking together strategy, close enough to provide support fie, but not close enough to take grenade damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by shogun on Jun 5, 2008 13:23:16 GMT -5
I think another tough part is deciding what to do if you are up. It feels dirty camping somewhere even though I know another team wouldn't hesitate to do it. I know a lot of the times if we are up we pick an area, we won't go after the team but they can come to us. We aren't hiding. I'm not sure if I should just accept the fact that camping is part of the game and if I get up by even one I should go hide somewhere that makes it easier for me to kill them but very hard for them to kill me. I guess part of me realizes it wouldn't make for a very good or exciting game. If I didn't care about winning then I would be in Social, but I always play ranked so obviously it matters to me. So should I just think in the aspect of who cares how exciting the game is and just take my lead and hide?
|
|
|
|
Post by boulder94 on Jun 5, 2008 17:47:09 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with have a superior position and having them come to you. I wouldn't consider it camping because the other team knows where you are because of the position advantage. True camping is a strategy but I look down on. I guess it is all in how you look at what you are doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Jun 11, 2008 14:44:03 GMT -5
To me, camping is fine. An effective camper is one who moves anyway. If you know there's a guy hiding in a base with a shotgun, you either ignore him or figure out the best way to kill him. It's usually not very effective to camp a spot, especially when you have people working together on the other team.
|
|
