No strat is viable when one side is clearly better than the other, plz stay on topic fellas =/ Dont want the prison guards to lock in this thread for life either.
From what I've seen, any clear concise strategy has a good chance of succeeding on a pub. This is because the public alien team is rarely a cohesive unit which means that they have a hard time exploiting any weakness a strategy might contain. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? A clan commander will most likely have a strategy in mind when he takes the chair, thereby giving his marines an ample chance to succeed.
Assuming the marines are inteligent enough to listen to a good commander, but either dont have the skill or the framerate for jetpacks. And assuming the skill of marines and skulks are not horribly mismatched, then a hive lockdown is better.
Because in that kind of situation (which is not uncommon on public servers), a jetpack rush is a one shot win or lose, and without good jetpackers the odds are not good.
But if you get the hives taken over and locked down properly; you have plenty of room for failed attacks, because you have a decent steady income, and no threat of acid/umbra/web.
<!--QuoteBegin--BreakfastSausages+Apr 9 2003, 02:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BreakfastSausages @ Apr 9 2003, 02:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Assuming the marines are inteligent enough to listen to a good commander, but either dont have the skill or the framerate for jetpacks. And assuming the skill of marines and skulks are not horribly mismatched, then a hive lockdown is better.
Because in that kind of situation (which is not uncommon on public servers), a jetpack rush is a one shot win or lose, and without good jetpackers the odds are not good.
But if you get the hives taken over and locked down properly; you have plenty of room for failed attacks, because you have a decent steady income, and no threat of acid/umbra/web. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> the problem is, when the marines take and secure one hive, they are focusing everything on that. Now by the time a squad gets one hive secure, the aliens get one hive secured as well. Marines do not get bonuses for securing hives, Aliens do. While someone is spending money on turrets, the aliens that are about to turn fade are thinking of how many marines they can kill in a row before going back to get health.
2 hive lock down, is not a good strat, because it rarely gets executed properly, and that is because the ammount of resources they need to secure and lock down a hive.
being in a clan and playing in scrims/matches definitely raises the bar for players. You go back to a pub and you do things that you would do in a scrim and it never gets countered because pubbers don't use that kind of strat. I don't know how many times I've gorged on the hive waiting for res and had everyone on my team bitching at me to "go get some rt's"..... HI I HAVE 10 RESOURCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111
dont post mean things about pubbers, only pubbers can bash clan members that compete to win, clan members cannot bash pubbers, man I'm disappointed, i thought you knew the rules.
yes, your right. Apologies to pubbers everywhere. I humbly withdraw my half-assed flame. In the future I look forward to blindly running about the map as gorge while waiting for enough resources to build a RT.
The two hive lockdown strategy makes little sense to me. By locking down two hives, the marines can then tech up while the aliens are held at level 3 carapace. This is fine and dandy, but considering that the marines can already tech faster than the aliens from the beginning means that this strategy really has little merit. While I suppose, as someone posted above, once completed you then can have many failed attempts to take down the hive and win, I offer the counterpoint that it is much more difficult to set up a two hive lockdown than it is to just straight tech rush considering there is little the aliens can do about it. Not to mention that, but if a commander can get his marines to lock down two hives efficiently, then he should have no problem getting them to build and guard RTs and to pressure the hive allowing the tech rush a chance to succeed.
Oh, and as far as pub marines having not enough skill or FPS to pull off a JP rush on the hive, I do not agree. The reason is because pub aliens lack the skill and strategy to properly defend the hive in any way, shape, or form. In my eyes, the advantage still goes to unskilled, low FPS marines.
I've never seen a pub commander that was not a member of a competing clan go jp/hmg, ever. The clans are the ones that introduced those tactics to pub play. Without us, turret farming would be the rule.
Minstrel_KnightThe truth and nothing but the truth...Join Date: 2002-11-21Member: 9562Banned
<!--QuoteBegin--NickBlasta+Apr 9 2003, 02:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NickBlasta @ Apr 9 2003, 02:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've never seen a pub commander that was not a member of a competing clan go jp/hmg, ever. The clans are the ones that introduced those tactics to pub play. Without us, turret farming would be the rule. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Inaccurate. There are plenty of upper tier players who are not in clans and play to win. Practically any pub commander with a shred of experience will do a jp/hmg rush.
Once again, I repeat... How many 'best' strategies are out there for NS 1.04? ... Not many.
Most of the best strategies <b>are already played</b> on public servers, so actually in answer to the initial post, you don't have to join a clan to learn these. Just play on public servers to know everything you need to know, or use your brain to think some up.
<!--QuoteBegin--Error404:+Apr 9 2003, 03:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Error404: @ Apr 9 2003, 03:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Once again, I repeat... How many 'best' strategies are out there for NS 1.04? ... Not many.
Most of the best strategies <b>are already played</b> on public servers, so actually in answer to the initial post, you don't have to join a clan to learn these. Just play on public servers to know everything you need to know, or use your brain to think some up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but where did these strats come from? Clans.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If it doesn't work chances are it is due to poor teamwork and inferior play from the randomly skilled pub players. That does not make the strategy less effective or an inferior strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes it does. That is exactly what it does. If you have a strategy that your team can not perform the strategy is bad. In theory it might be the "best" strategy in the world but of you can't get a team to perform it it sucks. This is true in Clans as well. I've discarded plenty of "excellent" tactics in CS just because the team wasn't able to perform it due to it's complexity and high reliance on timing, in theory those tactics were awesome, in reality a "everyone rush B" tactic was better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but are you in the mindset that Clan members cannot think of public server tactics and strategies as well as just people who pub?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. Does it seem that way? The only thing I have been saying is that just because a tactic works very well in your clan matches doesn't meaan it is a good tactic for a pub game. Most clanners seem to reason "Well the tactic is great, it's just that my team sucks" but that is just stupid. If your team can't perform it, it is no good. If you can't adapt as a COM to your teams ability (or inability) you're not a good COM.
This is also how public COM.ing and Clan COM-ing differ. In a clan you know what your team can and cannot do, and who is good at what. As a pub COM you need to figure this out every round, as quickly as possible. I've lost plenty of games just because I've given out equipment to the wrong people, I should have found out who would be most useful with it and made sure they got it. This is for example why it is usually better to wait until you can equip a lot of people at once in a pub instead of giving it out immediatly, chances are higher that the right person ends up with the right gear.
Oh, and nobody seems to have figured out the answer to the car question yet:
The ferrari is best if you're travelling on a high-way, the Land Rover is best if you're going off road. Smae goes for tactics, it depends on the circumstances, thus there <b>is</b> no "best" tactic (there may be a theoretically most efficient tactic), it depends on the circumstances.
To be quite honest most people don't seem to agree (or understand) this and as long as they don't, I don't think there is any point in discussing it at all.
Ps. Playing for fun > Playing to win. If you play to win you will only use what you percieve to be the easiste way to get there and not develop and experiment with alternatives, thus is the long run you will be weaker and les prepared for changes and lose more.
KenichiThis is not a pie.Join Date: 2002-11-01Member: 2941Members, NS1 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin--Optikal+Apr 9 2003, 04:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Optikal @ Apr 9 2003, 04:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok It sounds like this thread is winding down to it's last few replies, with that in mind I will make a quick and concise post.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, and nobody seems to have figured out the answer to the car question yet:
The ferrari is best if you're travelling on a high-way, the Land Rover is best if you're going off road. Smae goes for tactics, it depends on the circumstances, thus there is no "best" tactic (there may be a theoretically most efficient tactic), it depends on the circumstances.
To be quite honest most people don't seem to agree (or understand) this and as long as they don't, I don't think there is any point in discussing it at all.
Ps. Playing for fun > Playing to win. If you play to win you will only use what you percieve to be the easiste way to get there and not develop and experiment with alternatives, thus is the long run you will be weaker and les prepared for changes and lose more. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
opinions.
There are only facts. Stop voicing opinions and try sticking with facts. Opinions are like ****. We all got one.
Minstrel_KnightThe truth and nothing but the truth...Join Date: 2002-11-21Member: 9562Banned
edited April 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Stoneburg+Apr 9 2003, 09:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stoneburg @ Apr 9 2003, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes it does. That is exactly what it does. If you have a strategy that your team can not perform the strategy is bad. In theory it might be the "best" strategy in the world but of you can't get a team to perform it it sucks. This is true in Clans as well. I've discarded plenty of "excellent" tactics in CS just because the team wasn't able to perform it due to it's complexity and high reliance on timing, in theory those tactics were awesome, in reality a "everyone rush B" tactic was better. . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a strategy which your team finds too difficult to perform so you use something less difficult. Yet suddenly you encounter another team which can actually accomplish the strategy you were unable to do and with it completlely annihilates you. Clearly the strategy is fine, and the real issue is that your team sucks too much to be able to carry out the tactics of a higher level of play. The strategy is superior but your team is inferior. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ps. Playing for fun > Playing to win. If you play to win you will only use what you percieve to be the easiste way to get there and not develop and experiment with alternatives, thus is the long run you will be weaker and les prepared for changes and lose more. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A team that plays to win and wins will not be prone to innovate, since if you are winning why bother to change? That change might make you lose. A team that plays to win but loses will innovate, since they want to win and their current strategy does not work they will try harder to find a strategy that will allow them to win. A team that plays for fun might innovate, yet their innovations are much less likely to be good, or put to use than that of a clan that plays to win.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No. Does it seem that way? The only thing I have been saying is that just because a tactic works very well in your clan matches doesn't meaan it is a good tactic for a pub game. Most clanners seem to reason "Well the tactic is great, it's just that my team sucks" but that is just stupid. If your team can't perform it, it is no good. If you can't adapt as a COM to your teams ability (or inability) you're not a good COM. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats not true, its not the strat's fault the team sucks. So if I get a team that is really terrible and try a pressure strat, but I get HA instead of JP, full weapon upgrades, and MT, and the aliens run it back and destroy us, is it MY strat's fault for failing, or my teammates for failing me.
At what point in do the players take responsibility for their inability to kill? And what about the Marine's ability to adapt to the COMs strat?
And if a strat works with one group of marines, and not another group of marines, is it the strat's fault? or the inability to adapt to the COM's strat ?
Is the comm really to blame for a loss and he gives all of his men equipment, spams health and ammo, but the marines just cant do get it together? Or is it low quality marine players that will probably mess up any strat beyond the 2 hive lock down, which is probably the most simplest of strats to accomplish, but yields very little results.
It is a two way street, in regards to who has to adapt, and who has to accept responsibility for the win/loss.
Your point? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> opinions based on facts are not opinions, they are restating of the facts. They go beyond the single person. Experience is nothing more than the experiences of the user. They do not represent a whole, nor are they enough information to simulate a fact. The point, stop talking if all you can back up are your own experiences and opinions that mean nothing in the long run. I'm talking to all of you and not any single person. If your going to speak, speak with intelligence and not with your opinion. Speak with something you can backup.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ps. Playing for fun > Playing to win. If you play to win you will only use what you percieve to be the easiste way to get there and not develop and experiment with alternatives, thus is the long run you will be weaker and les prepared for changes and lose more. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a false statement considering sYn tried every type of chamber combination in several different scrims, we've used every weapon combination with every type of advanced equipment (HA/JP) and have used either MT or no MT depending on resources. Out of about 400 scrims we played, we lost twice.
Also in regards to pubs, I generally see clan tactics used whenever i am NOT comming, its stuff we did months ago that people are starting to use now in public servers, sometimes i see some unorthodox strats, but that is good, because its nice to see someone else develop a strategy that is fundamentally sound.
What experience do you have in the clan scene of NS ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ps. Playing for fun > Playing to win.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And these ideas are mutually exclusive? Well, you learn something new everyday.
That statement is flawed completely. I would find playing purely for fun to the exclusion of playing to win, to be extremly boring. Jumping around while shooting at teammates and stuff gets real old real quick. Now, playing for fun while trying to win can be quite fun. Your statement gives two options: 1) play to have fun, 2) play to win. Being on opposite sides, you have one OR the other. You can't have fun while trying to win, and you can't try to win when you're playing for fun. How about:
Playing with a focus towards having fun > Playing to win at the cost of fun.
Of course, you're still assuming that you can't have fun while playing to win at all costs. You're also assuming that people don't gain enough pleasure from the win itself to warrant the playing to win to the exlusion of fun. And you're assuming that people feel the same way about it as you do.
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No. Does it seem that way? The only thing I have been saying is that just because a tactic works very well in your clan matches doesn't meaan it is a good tactic for a pub game. Most clanners seem to reason "Well the tactic is great, it's just that my team sucks" but that is just stupid. If your team can't perform it, it is no good. If you can't adapt as a COM to your teams ability (or inability) you're not a good COM.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is so very true. The very best strategies take <i>everything</i> into account. Terrain, your troops, your enemies, weather... <i>everything</i>. If a strategy cannot work for any reason within a situation, then the strategy should not be used in that situation. That strategy is a bad strategy for the situation. If your players cannot perform a strategy due to lack of skill, they may be bad, but the strategy is also bad. Also, what most people call strategies are just build orders. The poor man's strategy. Strategy comes into it when you analyse a situation and pick what you need to win. Does this build order apply? Then use it. Does it not? Then don't use it. That is strategy.
Perhaps calling clan strats the <i>most streamline and efficient strategies</i> would be more appropriate. <i>Best</i> is most often subjective, and even more often it is situational. What is the best utensil? Try eating soup with a fork, or cutting steak with a spoon.
rofl ask any clan thats scrimmed with us more than once or twice. we played all kinds of whacked out strats for any number of reasons. to this day mogg still beleives in doing our riskier strats <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->, its just when we play "matches" (where winning is key) we dont usually use them, and we are known to be "conservative and time consuming" (aka not big on rushing) <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> that will all change once we get our hands on 1.1 testing oh yay <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--FireWater+Apr 9 2003, 02:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FireWater @ Apr 9 2003, 02:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the problem is, when the marines take and secure one hive, they are focusing everything on that. Now by the time a squad gets one hive secure, the aliens get one hive secured as well. Marines do not get bonuses for securing hives, Aliens do. While someone is spending money on turrets, the aliens that are about to turn fade are thinking of how many marines they can kill in a row before going back to get health.
2 hive lock down, is not a good strat, because it rarely gets executed properly, and that is because the ammount of resources they need to secure and lock down a hive. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> marines focusing everything on 1 hive and allowing aliens to secure the second one? well of course it will fail then, because that is not the correct way to do a 2 hive lock down.
And by your logic the jetpack rush is a horrible strategy, because I see it executed incorrectly all the time.
<!--QuoteBegin--Kenichi+Apr 10 2003, 02:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kenichi @ Apr 10 2003, 02:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> just because the players suck doesnt mean its a bad strategy, just means it was executed poorly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but if you know or expect that a strategy wont work due to poor execution, that strategy is bad for that situation.
KenichiThis is not a pie.Join Date: 2002-11-01Member: 2941Members, NS1 Playtester
strategies are a sound thing. Just because the people are bad doesnt mean the strategy is really bad. The people are bad. Strategies require certain skill levels to complete. As such the strategy is always perfect, when the requirements to pull it off a met. Saying a strategy is situational is sorta correct and sorta stupid. Sure it can only be done with the right setup but thats hardly to blame on the strat. Everyone here is argueing about good and bad strats. Lets face facts there are no clan or pub strats. All we have are strats. What we DO have is a plethora of BAD players.
Comments
This is all considering the aliens are of equal/less skill.
Because in that kind of situation (which is not uncommon on public servers), a jetpack rush is a one shot win or lose, and without good jetpackers the odds are not good.
But if you get the hives taken over and locked down properly; you have plenty of room for failed attacks, because you have a decent steady income, and no threat of acid/umbra/web.
Because in that kind of situation (which is not uncommon on public servers), a jetpack rush is a one shot win or lose, and without good jetpackers the odds are not good.
But if you get the hives taken over and locked down properly; you have plenty of room for failed attacks, because you have a decent steady income, and no threat of acid/umbra/web. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
the problem is, when the marines take and secure one hive, they are focusing everything on that. Now by the time a squad gets one hive secure, the aliens get one hive secured as well. Marines do not get bonuses for securing hives, Aliens do. While someone is spending money on turrets, the aliens that are about to turn fade are thinking of how many marines they can kill in a row before going back to get health.
2 hive lock down, is not a good strat, because it rarely gets executed properly, and that is because the ammount of resources they need to secure and lock down a hive.
=/
Oh, and as far as pub marines having not enough skill or FPS to pull off a JP rush on the hive, I do not agree. The reason is because pub aliens lack the skill and strategy to properly defend the hive in any way, shape, or form. In my eyes, the advantage still goes to unskilled, low FPS marines.
Inaccurate. There are plenty of upper tier players who are not in clans and play to win. Practically any pub commander with a shred of experience will do a jp/hmg rush.
Most of the best strategies <b>are already played</b> on public servers, so actually in answer to the initial post, you don't have to join a clan to learn these. Just play on public servers to know everything you need to know, or use your brain to think some up.
--------------
A = Clannies
B = Pubbers
C = Optikal
B<A where A!=B;
A<B where B contains C;
--------------
E = Clan Strats
F = Pub Strats
E=100;
F=E-50;
E>F clearly.
<!--emo&::siege::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/siege.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='siege.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif'><!--endemo--> boom.
Most of the best strategies <b>are already played</b> on public servers, so actually in answer to the initial post, you don't have to join a clan to learn these. Just play on public servers to know everything you need to know, or use your brain to think some up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but where did these strats come from? Clans.
Yes it does. That is exactly what it does. If you have a strategy that your team can not perform the strategy is bad. In theory it might be the "best" strategy in the world but of you can't get a team to perform it it sucks. This is true in Clans as well. I've discarded plenty of "excellent" tactics in CS just because the team wasn't able to perform it due to it's complexity and high reliance on timing, in theory those tactics were awesome, in reality a "everyone rush B" tactic was better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but are you in the mindset that Clan members cannot think of public server tactics and strategies as well as just people who pub?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Does it seem that way? The only thing I have been saying is that just because a tactic works very well in your clan matches doesn't meaan it is a good tactic for a pub game. Most clanners seem to reason "Well the tactic is great, it's just that my team sucks" but that is just stupid. If your team can't perform it, it is no good. If you can't adapt as a COM to your teams ability (or inability) you're not a good COM.
This is also how public COM.ing and Clan COM-ing differ. In a clan you know what your team can and cannot do, and who is good at what. As a pub COM you need to figure this out every round, as quickly as possible. I've lost plenty of games just because I've given out equipment to the wrong people, I should have found out who would be most useful with it and made sure they got it. This is for example why it is usually better to wait until you can equip a lot of people at once in a pub instead of giving it out immediatly, chances are higher that the right person ends up with the right gear.
Oh, and nobody seems to have figured out the answer to the car question yet:
The ferrari is best if you're travelling on a high-way, the Land Rover is best if you're going off road. Smae goes for tactics, it depends on the circumstances, thus there <b>is</b> no "best" tactic (there may be a theoretically most efficient tactic), it depends on the circumstances.
To be quite honest most people don't seem to agree (or understand) this and as long as they don't, I don't think there is any point in discussing it at all.
Ps. Playing for fun > Playing to win. If you play to win you will only use what you percieve to be the easiste way to get there and not develop and experiment with alternatives, thus is the long run you will be weaker and les prepared for changes and lose more.
--------------
A = Clannies
B = Pubbers
C = Optikal
B<A where A!=B;
A<B where B contains C;
--------------
E = Clan Strats
F = Pub Strats
E=100;
F=E-50;
E>F clearly.
<!--emo&::siege::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/siege.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='siege.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif'><!--endemo--> boom. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Opinions
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Oh, and nobody seems to have figured out the answer to the car question yet:
The ferrari is best if you're travelling on a high-way, the Land Rover is best if you're going off road. Smae goes for tactics, it depends on the circumstances, thus there is no "best" tactic (there may be a theoretically most efficient tactic), it depends on the circumstances.
To be quite honest most people don't seem to agree (or understand) this and as long as they don't, I don't think there is any point in discussing it at all.
Ps. Playing for fun > Playing to win. If you play to win you will only use what you percieve to be the easiste way to get there and not develop and experiment with alternatives, thus is the long run you will be weaker and les prepared for changes and lose more. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
opinions.
There are only facts. Stop voicing opinions and try sticking with facts. Opinions are like ****. We all got one.
Your point?
. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a strategy which your team finds too difficult to perform so you use something less difficult. Yet suddenly you encounter another team which can actually accomplish the strategy you were unable to do and with it completlely annihilates you. Clearly the strategy is fine, and the real issue is that your team sucks too much to be able to carry out the tactics of a higher level of play. The strategy is superior but your team is inferior.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Ps. Playing for fun > Playing to win. If you play to win you will only use what you percieve to be the easiste way to get there and not develop and experiment with alternatives, thus is the long run you will be weaker and les prepared for changes and lose more.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A team that plays to win and wins will not be prone to innovate, since if you are winning why bother to change? That change might make you lose.
A team that plays to win but loses will innovate, since they want to win and their current strategy does not work they will try harder to find a strategy that will allow them to win.
A team that plays for fun might innovate, yet their innovations are much less likely to be good, or put to use than that of a clan that plays to win.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats not true, its not the strat's fault the team sucks. So if I get a team that is really terrible and try a pressure strat, but I get HA instead of JP, full weapon upgrades, and MT, and the aliens run it back and destroy us, is it MY strat's fault for failing, or my teammates for failing me.
At what point in do the players take responsibility for their inability to kill? And what about the Marine's ability to adapt to the COMs strat?
And if a strat works with one group of marines, and not another group of marines, is it the strat's fault? or the inability to adapt to the COM's strat
?
Is the comm really to blame for a loss and he gives all of his men equipment, spams health and ammo, but the marines just cant do get it together? Or is it low quality marine players that will probably mess up any strat beyond the 2 hive lock down, which is probably the most simplest of strats to accomplish, but yields very little results.
It is a two way street, in regards to who has to adapt, and who has to accept responsibility for the win/loss.
Your point? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
opinions based on facts are not opinions, they are restating of the facts. They go beyond the single person. Experience is nothing more than the experiences of the user. They do not represent a whole, nor are they enough information to simulate a fact. The point, stop talking if all you can back up are your own experiences and opinions that mean nothing in the long run. I'm talking to all of you and not any single person. If your going to speak, speak with intelligence and not with your opinion. Speak with something you can backup.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a false statement considering sYn tried every type of chamber combination in several different scrims, we've used every weapon combination with every type of advanced equipment (HA/JP) and have used either MT or no MT depending on resources. Out of about 400 scrims we played, we lost twice.
Also in regards to pubs, I generally see clan tactics used whenever i am NOT comming, its stuff we did months ago that people are starting to use now in public servers, sometimes i see some unorthodox strats, but that is good, because its nice to see someone else develop a strategy that is fundamentally sound.
What experience do you have in the clan scene of NS ?
And these ideas are mutually exclusive? Well, you learn something new everyday.
That statement is flawed completely. I would find playing purely for fun to the exclusion of playing to win, to be extremly boring. Jumping around while shooting at teammates and stuff gets real old real quick. Now, playing for fun while trying to win can be quite fun. Your statement gives two options: 1) play to have fun, 2) play to win. Being on opposite sides, you have one OR the other. You can't have fun while trying to win, and you can't try to win when you're playing for fun. How about:
Playing with a focus towards having fun > Playing to win at the cost of fun.
Of course, you're still assuming that you can't have fun while playing to win at all costs. You're also assuming that people don't gain enough pleasure from the win itself to warrant the playing to win to the exlusion of fun. And you're assuming that people feel the same way about it as you do.
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No. Does it seem that way? The only thing I have been saying is that just because a tactic works very well in your clan matches doesn't meaan it is a good tactic for a pub game. Most clanners seem to reason "Well the tactic is great, it's just that my team sucks" but that is just stupid. If your team can't perform it, it is no good. If you can't adapt as a COM to your teams ability (or inability) you're not a good COM.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is so very true. The very best strategies take <i>everything</i> into account. Terrain, your troops, your enemies, weather... <i>everything</i>. If a strategy cannot work for any reason within a situation, then the strategy should not be used in that situation. That strategy is a bad strategy for the situation. If your players cannot perform a strategy due to lack of skill, they may be bad, but the strategy is also bad. Also, what most people call strategies are just build orders. The poor man's strategy. Strategy comes into it when you analyse a situation and pick what you need to win. Does this build order apply? Then use it. Does it not? Then don't use it. That is strategy.
Perhaps calling clan strats the <i>most streamline and efficient strategies</i> would be more appropriate. <i>Best</i> is most often subjective, and even more often it is situational. What is the best utensil? Try eating soup with a fork, or cutting steak with a spoon.
2 hive lock down, is not a good strat, because it rarely gets executed properly, and that is because the ammount of resources they need to secure and lock down a hive. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
marines focusing everything on 1 hive and allowing aliens to secure the second one? well of course it will fail then, because that is not the correct way to do a 2 hive lock down.
And by your logic the jetpack rush is a horrible strategy, because I see it executed incorrectly all the time.
Yes, but if you know or expect that a strategy wont work due to poor execution, that strategy is bad for that situation.