Stealth and Inc in WZs

[CarverX]

That's why you leave 2 people not 1.

[LarryRow]

Very well said. I think that is the way I will explain it to people in the future.

 

I agree, very sound logic. I wish he would have gone further and looked at something in the middle. 4-0-4 is more like extremely high risk, whereas something like 2-3-3 would make a far more interesting case study.

 

@ Mobius,

When you are defending, you are usually getting focused by attackers trying to clear out the node, and you're too busy preventing caps to kill them very much. You die plenty, and that's when you can switch sides if you need to. In a pinch, there is always /stuck to get to the other side. And you one thing that can't happen with the speeder: you can't get held up on your way by an interceptor from the other team. You show up in LOS of the freaking turret!

 

And your chess analogy is pretty good but it fails to consider ratios of attackers to defenders. 4 players with decent class synergy can easily hold up 7 people for a considerable time, but 1 person can't hold up 2-3 for very long. Even if you get mid, losing the sides is basically losing the game.

[Astarica]

By the way, 1/7/0, 2/6/0, 2/5/1, or 1/5/2 are all essentially the same strat. You can start with 1/7/0 and it can turn into any of those other 3 strats by moving 2 people from middle to somewhere else, and usually speedy classes (Tankasin, Marauder) are ideal to do that and incur very little penalty for switching.

 

All these 4 openings can be considered as a generic standard opening. Your goal is to take middle and one of the side turrets, and you believe you can take middle because your team is stronger than the other team. If the enemy team is stronger, you'd lose every single time had they simply match your opening by the virtue of being stronger. But, you can't really know if the enemy team is stronger until you engage them, so you might as well be optimism or you should just unsub out of fear of team of stunlocking Ops.

 

But if there was some way for you to know the strength of the enemy ahead of time, then you should never open with a standard opening if you know the enemy is stronger. Let's say 3 guys on your team type: "First time in this WZ, what do I do?" then there's a reason to believe you can't expect to win the power game. In this case you could say '2/0/6, all in!" This isn't becasue 2/0/6 counters any of those 4 patterns or that it's even a good strategy. It's because 2/0/6 is so different from a standard opening you hope the enemy gets confused or misread it, and this allows you to overcome their power. But you're taking a huge risk here, but if you somehow knew your team is way behind on the power game, then the risk isn't as big as it seems because you most likely won't win this game to begin with so might as well go out with a bang.

 

Of course, in reality, you can't possibly know how whether the enemy team is stronger than you, so you might as well stick to a standard opening until you've reason to believe otherwise. That said, a lot of people are really stubborn and don't realize when the enemy team is indeed stronger and they need to abandon their initial opening.

[Aehgo]

Is it really hard to type '1111111111111111111111111111111144444EASRRRT'

[MobiusZero]

And your chess analogy is pretty good but it fails to consider ratios of attackers to defenders. 4 players with decent class synergy can easily hold up 7 people for a considerable time, but 1 person can't hold up 2-3 for very long. Even if you get mid, losing the sides is basically losing the game.

 

4 players with decent class synergy will be destroyed by 7 players with decent class synergy. Even if delayed a bit, they will still take mid.

 

And see my previous post about why losing both sides but taking mid, is actually the superior position.

 

To use chess as an example again - It's basically like the King's Gambit (without the Fischer's Defense). You give up a side position, to capture the key center position, and then capitalize on that position to reclaim one of the sides.

Edited July 17, 2012 by MobiusZero

[Autreki]

/ops EMMAGHERD! i cant type cuz I am stunned by someone trying to cap west!

[LibertySol]

How does one call inc on players using stealth? I was in Novare Coast, when a stealther stunned me and started capping the node. I ended up stopping the cap and defeating him but I got all types of "call it out noob" or "nice no call". How am I supposed to call inc on something I can't see?

 

 

The second you were stunned you should have typed that you needed help wherever you were. You have to realize that defending isn't about living it's about defending. For example if theres 1 guy attacking after you call it out don't try to fight him unless you're sure you can kill him quickly. You should run away stop him from capping run away etc until help arrives and the node is secure.

[Astarica]

4 players with decent class synergy will be destroyed by 7 players with decent class synergy. Even if delayed a bit, they will still take mid.

 

And see my previous post about why losing both sides but taking mid, is actually the superior position.

 

To use chess as an example again - It's basically like the King's Gambit (without the Fischer's Defense). You give up a side position, to capture the key center position, and then capitalize on that position to reclaim one of the sides.

 

I think that's only true in Novare Coast. If you have both side turrets and defend 4/4, the respawn advantage is pretty much having 2 extra man on each side turret (4 at side can hold off 6 attackers reliably), so the defender essentially has 12 players and it's just too hard to overcome. You pretty much need to leave middle completely unguarded to have the manpower to overcome a 4/4 and of course if you leave middle unguarded then clearly it's not as valuable as you thought. The only time I've seen side turrets taken is if the enemy panic and went from 4/4 to say 6/2 because in doing so you would end up taking all the speed powerups, and now if the enemy hits the 2 side quick enough you don't have the speed powerups to get back there on time. Or that some of those defenders decide the best defense is a good offense and give up their superior position for no reason. A 4/4 switch to 5/3 on the side being attacked heavily can fend off almost any attack, while still leaving a speed powerup to quicly get another guy to the weaker side if needed.

 

This is actually a very good strategy in Novare Coast, but this is because Novare Coast always favors the team to the closer turret when it comes to east/west regardless of who owns it. In Alderaan, the team that owns the side turret always has a huge advantage on defense.

[MobiusZero]

4 players can't hold off 6 or 7, even with side speeders. After the initial death of the 4, they will return as a steady stream at a 1 to 6-7 ratio, and thus are easily crushed or CCed, buying all the time needed to cap the turret.

 

Granted, if you have 7 crappy players, this changes. But strategy can only go so far to win a WZ, when the skill just isn't there.

Edited July 17, 2012 by MobiusZero

[SinnedWill]

Lol, If I'm on any of my stealthy toons, and you're solo guarding it, I will kill you and likely solo cap the node in time before any help arrives - even if that person has called for help the moment I opened up from stealth with a stun (err knockdown). Thus, I agree with the OP and one of the earliest replies that followed: "Remind your team how bad they are for leaving one person to defend.".

 

And, sorry to the rest of you, but if anyone is ever node-guarding and gets jumped by stealthies, if you type "help at 'x location'", you will likely simply die immediately, wheras you might stun-break, defensive CD, stun, kite, and fight back (possibly winning) had you not bothered to type. Seriously, your team should keep track of enemy head-counts (individually and ops chat-wide for each node) and have enough common sense to realise that if they have only one person defending a node and the rest of them are facing a group of enemies with fewer numbers than they have... well, yep, there's obviously about to be some action elsewhere, so they should peel off (without overcomitting) to reinforce or pressure the node where none of their teammates are. Melees are the most frequent pugs that get "tunnel-vision" and fail to keep track of numbers, but it's certainly not exclusive to them.

 

In essence, OP, you did the right thing in my opinion. But, yes, others are correct that if say... you get jumped by 2+ burst DPS stealthies as a solo guard (your team would be idiotic if they let this happen), then.. yeah, you're likely best off typing it up that the node is lost, since a good pair of stealthy DPS will stun-lock you to death before you can act.

[MobiusZero]

Lol, If I'm on any of my stealthy toons, and you're solo guarding it, I will kill you and likely solo cap the node in time before any help arrives - even if that person has called for help the moment I opened up from stealth with a stun (err knockdown).

 

And if you can't kill them? Is this such a good strategy if everyone else is not so magnificently skilled as you are?

 

For most teams, this type of move is a gamble, and is a higher risk move.

 

In essence, OP, you did the right thing in my opinion. But, yes, others are correct that if say... you get jumped by 2+ burst DPS stealthies as a solo guard (your team would be idiotic if they let this happen)

 

In my opinion, the idiotic one, is the team who actually diverted 2 stealthers to take the node, leaving themselves 2 men down in mid.

 

Of course, skill can make up for deficiencies in tactics, but just because you can succeed in a certain strategy due to skill, does not make it the safest strategy, nor the best strategy to recommend to the majority.

 

1-7-0 or 2-6-0, is the work-horse, proven effective, Alderaan opening. It's like the E4 opening in chess. It's tried and true, and proven to be safe and effective.

 

You're welcome to open with a gambit, or a feint, some move to try and confuse your enemy, or whatever other opening you choose to employ. But that does not make it a generally effective opening that can always be relied on.

Edited July 17, 2012 by MobiusZero

[criminalheretic]

It takes way more than 15 seconds to get from say middlle of alderaan to side unless the guy was standing on the ramp ready to jump down, and in that case he should already see you're being attacked and don't you to call out for help.

 

I mean you can call out for help if it makes you feel better. I do it too but 99 out of 100 times in the 1on1 case the fight is over before anyone arrives unless they're already en route (i.e. patroller).

 

Gotta disagree with you. It may take way more than 15 seconds to go side to side in Alderaan, but it takes about 10 to go mid to side, which makes the extra 5 seconds crucial.

 

I'll time it tonight, and come back here and apologize if I'm wrong. But things seem to take longer when you're in a hurry.

[ArchangelLBC]

To really emphasize my position on the matter - I personally will sacrifice both side turrets if it means taking mid. I would even send all 8 players if that's what it took to take it. Once you take mid, you can then transition into taking a side node, and then have the easiest time possible controlling 2 nodes (since contrary to what you stated, in reality, it's easier to retain control of mid + 1 side turret, than 2 side turrets.).

 

 

Here's where I highly disagree with you. If you sacrifice both side turrets to guarantee you capture mid you are at a serious disadvantage. If you assume that their defenders are split 4/4 then you have to send a significant force to take either turret. They can then either see how much you're sending and hold you off until reinforcements arrive or they can transfer people off the node you're leaving alone to take mid which will either force you to defend it or sacrifice it. At worst they are continually trading nodes with you on a 1-1 basis which means you never get a chance to pull ahead as you must constantly assume you have to assault a position with enough force to take out at least 4 defenders. 5 can't take away a node reliably from 4 players who can reinforce instantly if they die because of side speeders. 6 can't clear off 4 faster than their other 4 can kill your remaining two at mid (if they're keeping a good head count they'll know they can safely send all 4 to mid, take it then send 2 back). 7 could potentially be relied upon to take the side turret from 4, but they can either send 2 mid and 1 to the other side to reinforce or send 2 and 2 if they have you all accounted for.

 

The point is, regardless of whether your team has an easier time holding 2 side turrets or side + mid, or whether you can actually prove beyond all doubt that one position is superior to the other you should never let yourself lose two turrets deliberately in ACW. To do so is a loser's strategy no matter which way you slice it.

[MobiusZero]

Here's where I highly disagree with you. If you sacrifice both side turrets to guarantee you capture mid you are at a serious disadvantage. If you assume that their defenders are split 4/4 then you have to send a significant force to take either turret. They can then either see how much you're sending and hold you off until reinforcements arrive or they can transfer people off the node you're leaving alone to take mid which will either force you to defend it or sacrifice it. At worst they are continually trading nodes with you on a 1-1 basis which means you never get a chance to pull ahead as you must constantly assume you have to assault a position with enough force to take out at least 4 defenders. 5 can't take away a node reliably from 4 players who can reinforce instantly if they die because of side speeders. 6 can't clear off 4 faster than their other 4 can kill your remaining two at mid (if they're keeping a good head count they'll know they can safely send all 4 to mid, take it then send 2 back). 7 could potentially be relied upon to take the side turret from 4, but they can either send 2 mid and 1 to the other side to reinforce or send 2 and 2 if they have you all accounted for.

 

The point is, regardless of whether your team has an easier time holding 2 side turrets or side + mid, or whether you can actually prove beyond all doubt that one position is superior to the other you should never let yourself lose two turrets deliberately in ACW. To do so is a loser's strategy no matter which way you slice it.

 

If the enemy team pulled defenders from their one side, then they would be even more greatly split. My mid defenders would call inc, and we would rush back to defend mid, then immediately head to the node those defenders came from. Due to those mid attackers being dead, that side node would be an easy capture. Going from mid to any side is very fast.

 

I think it would be obvious that the strategy would not include giving up mid so easily, after striving so hard to capture it.

 

And I would not typically deliberately lose both side turrets, unless it was the only way to capture mid. Also, keep in mind that in this situation, capturing mid would have meant the defeat of the enemy's main force (because mid wouldn't have been so difficult to take unless it had been largely contested.), thus giving you a great opportunity to transition into a side cap before the dead enemies can get into defensive position.

 

The key is for your team to stick together, and quickly be able to respond where the immediate need is. Against a team that spreads out, you will easily win every battle you fight, and will win the WZ because of it.

 

Now, say the enemy captured both sides, and then continually hit mid with everything they had - This is the one time that I would send a small amount of attackers to capture a side node, since we should still be able to hold them back with a group of equal numbers or even one man down.

 

Ideally, I want to set up 2 men at mid and 2 men at a side turret we control, and have a group of 4 alternating back and fourth. But this is only after we cap both nodes. If under enough duress, I would reduce the amount of defenders and increase the roving party to 5 or 6 men (this can especially work out if you have enough orbital strikes available.)

Edited July 17, 2012 by MobiusZero

[Rogoo]

Ignore them, people need to understand that you can't type whilst stunned.

 

I had no idea that stunning prevents chat typing... o.O

[Dissentus]

Ignore them, people need to understand that you can't type whilst stunned.

 

Yeah, it's kind of hard to type when you are getting shanked and trying to protect the node, but you can still type. (and most likely die in the process) Chat macros would do wonders for this.

[Vasagi]

Small egos cannot ever accept that they may be the reason a game is lost, so they have to spout blame anywhere they can. The real problem is that one person should not be defending alone, especially if your team has 2 nodes. People want to go off and farm medals while 1 person does the boring work, and still win.

 

Last time it happened to me I asked 3 times in about 2 minutes for someone to stay with me. 3 stealthers killed me in probably 2 global cooldowns. I was typing as I died, and they took the base about 4 seconds after sent the incoming call. 3 people on my team told me to kill myself because i am a baddie who cant pvp.

[Astarica]

Gotta disagree with you. It may take way more than 15 seconds to go side to side in Alderaan, but it takes about 10 to go mid to side, which makes the extra 5 seconds crucial.

 

I'll time it tonight, and come back here and apologize if I'm wrong. But things seem to take longer when you're in a hurry.

 

It's only 10 seconds if you started out on the top ramp, but that's not a good location to be standing in especially for melee. Consider you're likely to be fighting already (if there's no fighting someone should already be checking side turret) you can get snared/mezzed/whatever while you're working your way up to the ramp.

 

For the most part people helping from middle has to be near the jump off point to reach side on time, but if they're in that spot, they can usually see that you're under attack already. Someone who cannot see you from middle is generally nowhere close to help you.

[Astarica]

4 players can't hold off 6 or 7, even with side speeders. After the initial death of the 4, they will return as a steady stream at a 1 to 6-7 ratio, and thus are easily crushed or CCed, buying all the time needed to cap the turret.

 

Granted, if you have 7 crappy players, this changes. But strategy can only go so far to win a WZ, when the skill just isn't there.

 

I've held 4 on 6 for a long time. Don't confuse the fact that you're never anywhere close to winning to whether you can hold the node. It's perfectly fine to stall with a one man disadvantage in middle, i.e. 5on6 or 6on7. You'd expect to lose the node eventually but it can take a very long time for this to happen. On the side you basically get one more man thanks to the speeders. Also note that you obviously can't do 7on4 or even 6on4 for any extended period of time unles the entire enemy team is asleep. They'd either send someone to help out the 4 or just counterattack. I think counterattack in this case is a bad move, but even with a bad move this puts a very small window you can have a 6on4 advantage because you obviously have to respond to the counterattack eventually.

 

What usually happens is 4on6 will eventually fall but your team will be ahead by 200 points by the time it actually happens, which is not a bad trade if you assume the teams are evenly matched. This also assumes the other 4 guys for some reason never came to help.

[Elkirin]

OP,

 

You could pre type INC WEST then hit enter or a number and enter when you need to

 

 

you can even using up arrow have a selection of messages ready to go while staying moblie, but

keep it simple

Edited July 18, 2012 by Elkirin

[Raansu]

This is why you never solo defend. It's way to easy for a cloaker to deal with 1 person.

[Astarica]

The two stealther attack is generally a very bad idea against 2 defenders. It's obviously guaranteed win against 1 defender though 2 of anybody against 1 defender generally is a guaranteed win anyway.

 

Assuming your team isn't some kind of Alderran specialist, the most likely two stealth characters you have would be a Tankasin + Op healer. Now, these two characters are powerful, but burst DPS is not their forte. One of those two is a healer and the other guy is better suited for guarding the node than taking it by surprise. Although you can argue these two characters will defeat any other two characters defending eventually, that's not particularly relevent because the first guy you kill will definitely get back on time due to this duo's lack of burst DPS so you won't take the node.

 

So the two stealther attack is a very bad idea against a two defenders. In fact, if the enemy defended with single visible + 1 stealth, you may have set your team way back because this attack is not only going to fail, but you probably commited your best healer on the team to a futile cause. If the defenders are smart, they'd just not kill you on purpose knowing that they can tie up your best healer forever with no real risk of losing the node and this has to give their team a huge advantage in the middle.

 

So double stealth attack is actually not very dangerous at least if you talk about a by-the-book, class-optimized RWZ because your two stealthers won't have the burst DPS to pull it off against 2 defenders.

 

Now what if your two stealthers are Deception Assassin + Concealment Op? Then you'd have a stealth strike capability that's to be feared, but you might run into problem everywhere else because you deviate from the tried and true 'stack overpowered class' approach. In this case you can assume the enemy has a significant edge if they just went with the tried and true Tankasin + Op healer for those two identical slot that they should win just due to those two specs being far more overpowered to your counterparts.

[Ashania]

Even 2 people at a node aren't safe.

 

There's nothing more satisfying as a Scoundrel then making sure people are lined up together for a flash bang and then cap infront of them.

[LarryRow]

If the enemy team pulled defenders from their one side, then they would be even more greatly split. My mid defenders would call inc, and we would rush back to defend mid, then immediately head to the node those defenders came from. Due to those mid attackers being dead, that side node would be an easy capture. Going from mid to any side is very fast.

 

If they are dead, they can take the side speeder and arrive before your team gets to that side. I'm starting to think you just don't get it.

 

I played a bunch of Alderaan last night and really tried to pay attention to how the positions felt. I'm totally sold that sending people right is essential, and holding the sides is super easysauce, not that I wasn't sold already.

 

(I know, confirmation bias and all that, but every time we had mid it was a major PitA.)

[MobiusZero]

I've held 4 on 6 for a long time. Don't confuse the fact that you're never anywhere close to winning to whether you can hold the node. It's perfectly fine to stall with a one man disadvantage in middle, i.e. 5on6 or 6on7. You'd expect to lose the node eventually but it can take a very long time for this to happen. On the side you basically get one more man thanks to the speeders. Also note that you obviously can't do 7on4 or even 6on4 for any extended period of time unles the entire enemy team is asleep. They'd either send someone to help out the 4 or just counterattack. I think counterattack in this case is a bad move, but even with a bad move this puts a very small window you can have a 6on4 advantage because you obviously have to respond to the counterattack eventually.

 

What usually happens is 4on6 will eventually fall but your team will be ahead by 200 points by the time it actually happens, which is not a bad trade if you assume the teams are evenly matched. This also assumes the other 4 guys for some reason never came to help.

 

Obviously if a team is not good enough to take back a side node, this isn't going to happen.

 

The reality, is that if your team won the battle in mid, you will have no trouble taking a side node. It's simply too hard for a defender to hold both against a good team. Mid + side, due to the ability of allowing the team to stick together, is a much easier position to defend.

 

If you send some of your defenders to reinforce the side being hit, then my team will just hit the side you left undefended. Either way, you won't be able to stop one side from falling, and once we take mid + side, it's GG.

 

Certainly, this strategy relies on your team being able to win fights (in fact, it basically tries to impose large skirmishes on the enemy.), but that's the way it should be. Any other strategy is a gimmick, and comes at a higher risk.

 

If they are dead, they can take the side speeder and arrive before your team gets to that side. I'm starting to think you just don't get it.

 

Oh? So your team has a psychic that knows exactly what side we are going to hit? In order to beat our team to the turret, you must guess, which isn't exactly a solid basis for a strategy, is it?

 

EDIT: Even then, I'd also like to time how long it actually takes. Also keep in mind that gap closers and range, make it less travel time coming from or to mid.

 

I played a bunch of Alderaan last night and really tried to pay attention to how the positions felt. I'm totally sold that sending people right is essential, and holding the sides is super easysauce, not that I wasn't sold already.

 

Unfortunately, many PuGs suffer from the issue of spreading out too much, when they lose both sides. What will typically happen, is they will try to take one side, die, and then decide to hit the other side instead, when they should have reinforced where the bulk of their team was. Of course, the exception to this is if the enemy reinforces one side too much (though, if your team can crush the enemy, going to the heavily reinforced turret is not a bad idea.).

 

(I know, confirmation bias and all that, but every time we had mid it was a major PitA.)

 

Sounds to me like you are the one going to the right every game. Of course mid is not going to go well, if you are off dicking around to the right.

 

Sometimes, a team will also fail to transition properly to a side node, as I pointed out (how people spread out.).

 

In the end, skill is most definitely the most important factor. If your team sucks badly enough that they can't take a side node, then it's not necessarily a failing of the strategy.

 

But a good team, is not going to fail to take a turret that is defended by 4 people, when they have 6-7 people. There's plenty of CC in this game to stop reinforcements from attacking your slicer, after the initial 4 defenders have been obliterated.

Edited July 18, 2012 by MobiusZero