You're probably not good enough to triple cap the enemy.

[darknagashadow]

sometimes a good offense is your best defense, their are times when you know your going to lose a turret or node and the only remaining choice is where your team is positioned when you lose it,.

[needalight]

My friend and I do it all the time. When the enemy has 1 node they are likely to leave 1 (at most 2) there and have 7 pushing for a new node. As we all know with steady reinforcements only 5 or so are necessary to keep 7 from capping the node they are going over. Considering we ran 2's together in WoW we can make light work of 2-3 people, therefore we easily steamroll 1-2 people. I'll take cover where the enemy comes for reinforcements and CC with pulse, flash, leg shot, and dirty kick while my friend caps. Point is playing outside the box wins games.

[Elkirin]

PvP is situational, while it is extrememly rare in ranked warzones, I have seen the 1-4-1-2 split nonsense where people wander off on their own, work in civil war, usually it means you had the firepower to easily hold/cap a side and mid anyway but meh people play to enjoy..

 

I am guilty of pressing the "votekick" button when we have 2-3 stealthers at their only node watching the one guy defending while we are getting belted 7-4 mid and could do with a distraction. " I want them to engage or quit"

 

I am also guilty of being happy when the same stealthers rollout and cap the 2 sides drawing away people from mid so we can get a sustainable side mid cap routine going. , I congratulate them on the flips.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Elkirin

[Astarica]

If you could fight 2 guys by yourself especially in a map like ACW then you could just move that guy who can do a 1on2 to where the node is currently being attacked and by the fact that he is as good as two guys you should be more than capable of defending it and leave nothing to chance.

 

Novare Coast favors aggression but even there you usually have to leave a node undefended to be able to hit the third node which means it's a calculated risk and a rather significant one.

 

The two most likely scenario you'll encounter while trying to 3 cap is:

 

1. You find a large (2+) number of AFK medal farmers who will summarily kill you for daring to interrupt their ancient ritual.

 

2. You ran into the other side's best player who is the only person with the foresight to realize that somebody needs to stay behind to defend a node even if everything looks hopeless. He has been bored out of his mind the whole game and proceeds to own you now that there's finally something for him to do.

 

Though to be fair without people stupidly trying to 3 cap it would not be very easy to get 8 medals in a game where that's a guaranteed 300-0 loss when you're on the losing side. Thankfully you can always count on the heroes that walk up to you and die horribly, and if there's enough of them you might even be able to get back in the game.

[Racter]

Depends on how good the people are going for the three cap and when in the match it happens. IE, in ACW, I almost always go directly for the enemy node alone or with one other. I do this because unless I recognize the name going to "our" side node (and after transfers I usually don't) I assume it's a loss and we HAVE to cap the side node first because the battle for mid/south always takes an eternity and is largely a guessing game. Best case scenario we three cap, worst case scenario we got at least one node quickly and will likely win one of the other nodes shortly thereafter.

 

Later in the game, depends on what's going on. IE, in NC, If we clearly over committed to an inc call, and I'm at that node, 9/10 I make a run for their node. Doesn't always work but worst case scenario I pulled 1-3 more enemy players away from our weak node quickly while the group ran back. Less valuable in ACW due to the longer travel time on offense vs the team defending a node, unless the over commit node is mid and you can quickly peel to one side or the other.

 

It's always a toss up.

[Nastynas]

I won't know until I try!!

[bobmcbo]

it's not always that simple. Today, the enemy team abandoned their turret to rush mid. 2 of us took advantage of that to capture the turret, a little before we lost ours. Only change was the enemy now had a harder to defend position- no loss there.

[Astarica]

The "I draw the enemy away' is almost always wrong. The defender is the equivalent of a goalie. I've never seen anyone who can be considered a remotely good player that randomly leaves his node completely undefended to do something else unless it's desperation time (i.e. near the point of no return in ACW for example). For the sake of analysis we'll assume neither side employs a no defense strategy.

 

The side with 1 node has at least 1 guy defending the node and 7 guys to attack. This guy is usually going to be at least the right class for defending, and he's likely one of the better players on the team (if they leave the weakest player behind, they should really just send all 8 guys to attack). Their 7 attackers created some kind of pressure so you decide to draw them away. You attack this one guy defending, he calls for help and another guy comes to help and kills you. So you draw one guy away from the offense, except you're also one guy who could've defended. The node defender was not a valid attack option because he can't leave the undefended. If it takes less time for the guy who killed you to return to battle than you respawning (usually true), then you're now behind.

 

In fact, it's more than this. Let's say you just have a very straightforward 7on6 brawl in ACW in the middle. You veer off from the team of 6 and drawing 1 of the 7 to a side cannon and lose. Now the middle fight is 6v5 instead of 7v6. Yet, a one man advantage is more significant the less total people there are. That is, 2on1 is a much greater advantage than 7on6, so even if you and the help are out of the fight for exactly the same time, your team is still at a bigger disadvantage.

 

Now invariably people will say things like, "But I am so awesome, whenever I show up it takes 3 guys to stop me." Well if it takes 3 guys to stop you, you should take your presence to where the large number of enemies are currently attacking and prove your ability to fight 3 guys at the same time. Certainly whoever is under attack would appreciate seeing a guy who can fight like he's 3 guys.

 

This analysis is even worse if you're talking about fighting defenders who are farming defender medals. In this case, the opposing team will be glad you attacked them because they sure can't figure out how to get those AFK guys to contribute otherwise. They won't get distracted by this attack because they want you to continue to fight these guys who are otherwise deadweights, and if those 3 defender medal farmers inexplicably lost to 1 guy, who cares? They were never going to come attack so why even save them? Any time these deadweight can stall is a gain for the opposing team, not to mention these guys might actually win.

[Exilim]

I won't know until I try!!

 

That's the spirit. At least make sure they are keeping a defender there.

[dcgregorya]

The "I draw the enemy away' is almost always wrong. The defender is the equivalent of a goalie. I've never seen anyone who can be considered a remotely good player that randomly leaves his node completely undefended to do something else unless it's desperation time (i.e. near the point of no return in ACW for example). For the sake of analysis we'll assume neither side employs a no defense strategy.

 

The side with 1 node has at least 1 guy defending the node and 7 guys to attack. This guy is usually going to be at least the right class for defending, and he's likely one of the better players on the team (if they leave the weakest player behind, they should really just send all 8 guys to attack). Their 7 attackers created some kind of pressure so you decide to draw them away. You attack this one guy defending, he calls for help and another guy comes to help and kills you. So you draw one guy away from the offense, except you're also one guy who could've defended. The node defender was not a valid attack option because he can't leave the undefended. If it takes less time for the guy who killed you to return to battle than you respawning (usually true), then you're now behind.

 

In fact, it's more than this. Let's say you just have a very straightforward 7on6 brawl in ACW in the middle. You veer off from the team of 6 and drawing 1 of the 7 to a side cannon and lose. Now the middle fight is 6v5 instead of 7v6. Yet, a one man advantage is more significant the less total people there are. That is, 2on1 is a much greater advantage than 7on6, so even if you and the help are out of the fight for exactly the same time, your team is still at a bigger disadvantage.

 

Now invariably people will say things like, "But I am so awesome, whenever I show up it takes 3 guys to stop me." Well if it takes 3 guys to stop you, you should take your presence to where the large number of enemies are currently attacking and prove your ability to fight 3 guys at the same time. Certainly whoever is under attack would appreciate seeing a guy who can fight like he's 3 guys.

 

This analysis is even worse if you're talking about fighting defenders who are farming defender medals. In this case, the opposing team will be glad you attacked them because they sure can't figure out how to get those AFK guys to contribute otherwise. They won't get distracted by this attack because they want you to continue to fight these guys who are otherwise deadweights, and if those 3 defender medal farmers inexplicably lost to 1 guy, who cares? They were never going to come attack so why even save them? Any time these deadweight can stall is a gain for the opposing team, not to mention these guys might actually win.

 

/thread

[DarthBloodloss]

Dunno if anyone agrees with me, but IMO going for the right node when the game first starts in Civil War is almost the same as going for 3 caps.

 

Sure you can be a hero and take the node from a bad, but there's a reason 95% of people don't use that tactic. The risk-reward ratio is completely out of whack. You risk the enemy team getting a chokehold on the game if you dilly-dally for too long. Its like starting an American football game by throwing 4 hail marys. Sure it might work.....but usually wont and will end up costing you.

 

You are risking getting your team into a hole, but the payoff is solo capping a base that you likely wont be able to defend for very long.

[Jagil]

Anyone else get annoyed when 2 people on your team try to rambo the enemy's only node and we wind up losing one of ours while they're messing around? The game is pretty simple, you have two nodes, they have one, you win as long as you don't lose one.

 

When you heavily outgun them and communication is good , its quite simple holding all 3. Had a match last night where we had 3 for all but 20 seconds of the CW match.

 

If you can do it, do it .... more comms per minute.

[Jagil]

You are risking getting your team into a hole, but the payoff is solo capping a base that you likely wont be able to defend for very long.

 

Its up to your team mates to have situational awareness. If you are fighting in a stalemate at a node with equal strength sides and you see the enemy's native node get capped by one of your guys, your team sux @rse if nobody runs to back them up immediately.

[Hogild]

Earlier me and my guildmate had a civil war. Our team had both side turrets. What happend was we saw the Imperial team still had 6 players at mid when we got back from spawn. We then attacked mid thus forcing them to keep a high number of people defending their only turret. We are a quite good DPS/Healer combo so each time we attacked we killed 1 sometimes 2 ppl. That forced the Imperial healers to stay mid because if they left to support an attack of their own mid would fall as a result.

 

In rated warzones it is essential to send out good duos that can attack and manage multiple enemies for an extended period of time.

 

Before anyone says anything about a good dps/healer combo only manage to kill sometimes 2 ppl in an attack. There was always 6 of them, 2 healers, 4 dps.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Hogild

[Fdzzaigl]

You clearly don't understand basic strategies.

 

You send 1 person who has the skills/gears/ability to win 2 versus 1 (Powertech or Marauder). This in turn elicits the response of 3 people to the third point. So it becomes 6 versus 5. Send two strong players and suddenly the situation becomes 5 versus 2 on the off-node and on the main node 5 versus 3.

 

If they don't allocate the people they will be 3 capped. If they do then you still have your two captured points.

 

Don't make me laugh, your basic strategy is made out of fail.

 

If the defenders are any good, no powertech or marauder can 2vs1 them and even if he could, his efforts would be better spent on defending a point instead of attacking 2 people who are contributing absolutely nothing to the enemy team.

 

Learn the basic strategy of all basic strategies: hold on to 2 points and win, before you start berating anyone.

 

The only time a PuG should send guys to the third turret, is when they're crushing the enemy or when they're almost certain they'll lose a point.

[Kalfear]

Dunno if anyone agrees with me, but IMO going for the right node when the game first starts in Civil War is almost the same as going for 3 caps.

 

Sure you can be a hero and take the node from a bad, but there's a reason 95% of people don't use that tactic. The risk-reward ratio is completely out of whack. You risk the enemy team getting a chokehold on the game if you dilly-dally for too long. Its like starting an American football game by throwing 4 hail marys. Sure it might work.....but usually wont and will end up costing you.

 

You are risking getting your team into a hole, but the payoff is solo capping a base that you likely wont be able to defend for very long.

 

I certainly dont agree

 

I find going 2-6-0 (or worse 1-7-0) to be the sign of someone with no clue what they doing out there and refuse to be apart of it personally.

 

Be it 1,2,3 people sent to the right in ACW, the idea IS NOT to triple cap but to spread out your opponents forces.

 

And this concept that you have to own the middle to win ACW is also newbish thinking paterns.

 

Ive seen many great teams control left and right in ACW and leave their opponent the middle.

 

It takes almost the same time (few seconds longer) to go from middle to left as it does to go from right to left using the underground.

 

You DO NOT have to have the middle to Win ACW.

 

Personally speaking, I will not follow a 1-7-0 or 2-6-0 game plan as it almost NEVER works and usually offered up by people who want numbers so their lack of ability is covered up by someone else.

 

Ill gladly be apart of a token force going middle while the main force hits the right side. Sometimes Ill even take middle with 2 others in fact.

 

But soon as someone says 2-6-0, I know we in deep poo poo and its probably going to be a lose.

 

Have pvp'd with some very good people and not one of them ever thought as singular minded as 1-7-0 or 2-6-0 in ACW.

 

Sorry but sending the entire force to the middle is a losing stratagy that EASY to defeat.

And lord know I hope no one ever offers up 6-2-0 as a plan.

[LarryRow]

Dunno if anyone agrees with me, but IMO going for the right node when the game first starts in Civil War is almost the same as going for 3 caps.

 

Sure you can be a hero and take the node from a bad, but there's a reason 95% of people don't use that tactic. The risk-reward ratio is completely out of whack. You risk the enemy team getting a chokehold on the game if you dilly-dally for too long. Its like starting an American football game by throwing 4 hail marys. Sure it might work.....but usually wont and will end up costing you.

 

You are risking getting your team into a hole, but the payoff is solo capping a base that you likely wont be able to defend for very long.

 

I disagree as well. At the beginning of a match, if one harasser can prevent two opponents from capping the node, but your team can cap yours, your team will pull ahead. As in, you will be categorically Winning, while not sacrificing numbers at mid.

 

Once all the nodes are capped, it makes far less sense to do this, however, as Astarica so eloquently pointed out above. Seriously, I'm starting to think that guy is a Mathematician specializing in Game Theory. He always assumes equally geared/skilled teams with equivalent ability and tendency to communicate, and comes up with perfect analyses.

 

Of course, in practice, uneven matches tend to be the norm. I still say the 3-cap is what you do to end a match early when you can tell your team is much better. Just gotta do it before the other team turtles, and make sure your team is actually judging correctly that they are that much better. How to ensure this... I dunno.

[Darth_Philar]

I'm a big fan of 2-3-3 myself, as long as the 3 at mid are two tanks and a healer.

 

Most opening strategies send 5-7 to mid. If you send a defensive 3 to mid, you can focus on preventing the mid cap long enough for the enemy to either give up on mid or refocus on one of the two side nodes allowing you to cap mid+side.

 

The downside of the 2-3-3 is that it requires specific roles and good players to pull off effectively.

 

 

I've also had success with a 2-5-1 with my Sorc Healer being the 1. If they only send 1 to their natural, I can either solo cap it under him (if he is bad) or harass him long enough to where he needs to call for help (which comes from mid) giving my team a chance to cap mid. If I see more than 1 going to their natural, I can always turn around and reinforce mid. As healers are better suited to multi person fighting, I don't normally run this strategy unless we have at least 2 other healers.

[Astarica]

I don't think the OP isn't talking about say you open up 1-5-2 and then somehow capped all 3 places anyway because the other team is just inexplicably bad. He's talking about cases where you clearly have established one side controlling 2 nodes while the other side clearly has one node and yet instead of just playing safe and defend until the game ends, your guys inexplicably goes on the final offensive for no reason.

 

Even the most ambitious opening attempts to cap 2 turrets while stalling at the third one. If you really try to win all 3 battles you'd get utterly smashed by an equally strong team because that's just not possible and you'd be spreading your guys way too thin across 3 nodes.

 

In the opening of ACW/NC there's enough weirdness/chaos that, combined with your opponent being bad, it's quite conceiveable to cap all 3 nodes. But those are just opportnites you take advantage of should they present themselves. You never walk into either map trying to get all 3 nodes at the start unless you start with an insurmountable advantage in gear/class composition, and in that case there's not much point talking about how to best stomp vastly inferior competition.

[dcgregorya]

Earlier me and my guildmate had a civil war. Our team had both side turrets. What happend was we saw the Imperial team still had 6 players at mid when we got back from spawn. We then attacked mid thus forcing them to keep a high number of people defending their only turret. We are a quite good DPS/Healer combo so each time we attacked we killed 1 sometimes 2 ppl. That forced the Imperial healers to stay mid because if they left to support an attack of their own mid would fall as a result.

 

In rated warzones it is essential to send out good duos that can attack and manage multiple enemies for an extended period of time.

 

Before anyone says anything about a good dps/healer combo only manage to kill sometimes 2 ppl in an attack. There was always 6 of them, 2 healers, 4 dps.

 

No, it isn't. Civil war it is easier to defend sides than attack it and therefore there is never any reason why it'd be "essential to send out good duos". Those same people can just defend. I don't know why you'd talk about RWZ, ACW in RWZ is literally race to cap sides and then sit on them all game.

[Astarica]

No, it isn't. Civil war it is easier to defend sides than attack it and therefore there is never any reason why it'd be "essential to send out good duos". Those same people can just defend. I don't know why you'd talk about RWZ, ACW in RWZ is literally race to cap sides and then sit on them all game.

 

There's no such thing as a character who is good at attacking against adverse odds that isn't as good or better at defending against adverse odds.

 

That is, let's say you're so awesome that you can attack 1on3 and still win, then you'd be even better defending 1on3 because you also have the defender advantage. In fact, if anyone is this awesome, the node he is at should never fall. Against good teams who really possess such super awesome guys, you'll always find them on defense when they're ahead because why risk anything if you know you'll never lose a node with your awesome guy defending? It's pretty hard to beat a guaranteed win.

[DarthBloodloss]

I find going 2-6-0 (or worse 1-7-0) to be the sign of someone with no clue what they doing out there and refuse to be apart of it personally.

 

This is how 85% of CW matches start. 6 or 7 to mid and 1 or 2 (or 3) to left. I don't see how you refuse to be a part of 85% of games.... You can't control what pugs do, so do you just quit if they dont send 3 people to Right?

 

And this concept that you have to own the middle to win ACW is also newbish thinking paterns. Ive seen many great teams control left and right in ACW and leave their opponent the middle.

 

I dont think anyone in the thread thinks you need mid to win. It just makes logical sense to focus on it at the start since most of your team will be zerging there regardless of what you suggest.

 

Personally speaking, I will not follow a 1-7-0 or 2-6-0 game plan as it almost NEVER works and usually offered up by people who want numbers so their lack of ability is covered up by someone else.

 

Ill gladly be apart of a token force going middle while the main force hits the right side. But soon as someone says 2-6-0, I know we in deep poo poo and its probably going to be a lose.

 

In 83 valor levels, I have never once seen the main force attack the right node. I feel like I'm being trolled....the main force goes right....but a 2-6-0 is a guaranteed loss?

[Tommot]

Anyone else get annoyed when 2 people on your team try to rambo the enemy's only node and we wind up losing one of ours while they're messing around? The game is pretty simple, you have two nodes, they have one, you win as long as you don't lose one.

 

YES. This gets very annoying.

[BigfootNZ]

For me its all psychology, If you have left and mid, and mid has say 5 people (3 of em roaming where needed), and left has 2 or 1 and left hasnt been hit for a good few minutes or not at all sending out 1 (and I do mean only 1) person to right CAN mentally throw the other team into confusion, enough to stop them doing a 7 or even 8 man hit on mid or left or doing a 3-4 on mid and left, which CAN turn the tide of a fight if it succeeds (Ive been in a few pugs where a simple faint followed by a mass hit on a node has resulted in retaking 2 nodes or even the odd 3 cap after it throws the other team into a mess).

 

To me its more about keeping the pressure up, most players arent very clear on their incs, a player will either call inc when dead or simply yell "inc snow!" even if theres just 1 attacker coming, this is enough to hopefully draw away 1-3 other attackers that could possibly turn the tide somewhere else thanks to poor intel (hence why you should ALWAYS give a number in your incs, even though often in pugs it'll still make half your team come running)... if you keep sending 1 player to their single node they HAVE to keep at least 2 people at it or possibly loose it.

 

And on that note, id say the only people who should be the harasser are stealthers or Pyro/Assualt troopers/BH's, I say this because stealthers create panic, im sure we've all done it while D'ing a node and suddenly boom your hit out of no where, admit it you often panic, and you often dont know how many other stealthers might be around. I also say Pyro/Assualts because there highly mobile and (from my own personal experince) can take on 2 at once for a decent amount of time if played well.

 

Yesterday in a CW I spent the entire game hitting right on my scoundrel, id often kill 1 of the 2 defenders and would draw off at least 2 others from those going to mid. Using one player to pull and keep 4 other players to a place on the map away from your nodes is a very strong defensive measure.

 

That being said, it should only ever be 1 player (or maybe 2 stealth) since any more and you do start to hurt your own ability to defend against a 6-7 enemy attack at say mid or left (from under).

 

Also one ting I learned (and I had never thought of it before) was taking left and right allows you to defend alot faster since the speeder to those sides is quicker than to mid.

 

Ultimatly to me, variety is the winner, if they dont expect whats coming, even if its half assed it can still work

[Icebergy]

Not sure what you guys are doing wrong, but when I play Alderaan I ALWAYS tell the group to do 2-0-6. Myself (guardian tank) and a healer are the two and its an easy win 90% of the time. When people actually listen.