Eu - Rule change suggestion 2v2 Combat

After hearing several complaints about the rules as they are now, and also suggestions on how to improve the rules here is my suggestion for update of the Eu 2v2 Team Combat rules.

Why?: To promote more action and less "camping".

How?: If enough intrest and support are shown here, changes might be done.

What?: Think objective and then remove the objectives. Whats left? Killing of course. My suggestion is based on the same ground as obj but with no obj, and a few changes-

*For assault to win a round they have to -kill both opfors or -when time goes out have a 1 player alive more then opfors (2v1).

*For defense to win a round they have to -kill both opfors or -when time goes out have at least the same amount of players alive (2v2, 1v1, 2v1).

Also, with these rulechanges, I think that one map could be reinstated- Mountain Pass. (Also the vote to remove RB and MP was done before Eu 2v2 ladder opened.)

So..will this make everyone having to run around all the time? No, those that like it can still sort of "camp" but on assault you need to be more aggresive which for many players also seems natural.

Note: MOUT Mckenna Remains the same as of course.

If you like it, have any other ideas etc, make your vocie heard here!

Regards
Da_Champ

Eu 2v2 Tc Admin
[sp@z]-Swe-
Post edited by Da_Champ at 4/4/2003 9:39:00 AM

I am sorry I have no imput to give here. Good luck.


Ecks was busy so I am posting for him.

Sounds good, I say we give it a try
Post edited by Deleon at 4/4/2003 2:58:56 AM

I'll ask our Euro players to come check this out.

Sounds good to me. But no MP please
Those rules are good but will make deffin even easier, so now u can go camp in da most bizarre, hard to find, easy to def places, which aint bad imho

sounds good to me.
/action Slaps you with a dead opfor.

what!!!! did you really think about this - your crazy!!

nooooooooooo


he he - only joking - but i am a bit worried- most maps favour defence and also make it easier to camp "on defence" so with this new rule it forces the assaulters to go find the campers - big disadvantage for when you are on assault!

ok you could argue that when you are on defence then it is your turn to have the advantage, but if you are not a camping play type of guys then you instantly give up that advantage!

what i am trying to say is that it seriously encorages camping when playing defence and makes the assaulters walk into defences camped traps!

not great in my opinion but......i will gladly give it a go to see what happens

Originally posted by: [sp@z]_d@i

what!!!! did you really think about this - your crazy!!

nooooooooooo


he he - only joking - but i am a bit worried- most maps favour defence and also make it easier to camp "on defence" so with this new rule it forces the assaulters to go find the campers - big disadvantage for when you are on assault!

ok you could argue that when you are on defence then it is your turn to have the advantage, but if you are not a camping play type of guys then you instantly give up that advantage!

what i am trying to say is that it seriously encorages camping when playing defence and makes the assaulters walk into defences camped traps!

not great in my opinion but......i will gladly give it a go to see what happens

True..but its the same right now.. Def camps most of the time cause they have good spots.. the new rule would however stop BOTH teams from camping as Assault has to do something to get something.

Also, as it is now, we prefer to be more aggresive on def than assault as on most maps def have the best startpoint to be aggresive (when u consider c0mbat, not obj.)
Post edited by Da_Champ at 4/4/2003 9:30:54 AM

sounds great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

not sure i would agree there champy m8 - i feel that def really have the easier time to dig in - agreed they can (if they like) attack more readily - but most guys camp more on defence than on assault - as in most cases you have to move at least a bit on assault so as not to be out in the open!

i think that this rule will benefit campers - as they will almost be guarenteed 6 wins on defence (coz they will camp like hell) and as long as the other team are not lame enough to do the same when they are on defence, then the previous campers will have equal chance for the next 6 rounds - meaning an overall advantage to camping like hell on defence! which means it will encourage guys to camp like hell when on defence so that it evens things out.

like i say i think it will create much more serious camping overall - but as i said before hey i may be wrong and it maybe the best rule ever!! woot

i am sure we will soon find out - lol

1. I dont mind the rules as they are now, so this isnt mainly my suggestion, I just try to gather what Ive been hearing about teams dont like camping on assa.

2. Well Dai.. u have missed the point here.. today Def camps.. with new rules Def still camps..so? The main suggestion is to get assault to move more.. as in Obj.. Def camps there too..but thats not any problem right? Assa have to go get them or they loose the round..they have nothign to loose so they attack..or how many objective matches ahve you seen where Assa camps until times goes out at spawn to loose? Thats my point m8..that by having the rule that assa need to do something to get something u get more action, but I have never said I suggest removing camping totally!

i agree with you m8 - i never said otherwise - but my point is that it encourages camping - we have had a few wars in this ladder now and there was only 2 teams that camped - with these new rules i would say that all teams will camp at least on def

with both def sides camping the games will go on for hours and we will have fatalities where people fall asleep dropping a hot cup of tea, scolding thier parts, then falling out of windows in an attempt to dive in to an appealingly cool looking puddle outside in the road!

at the end of the day your right something should be done - but this rule of def winning if the teams are even - sorry i really can't agree that that is a good idea - guarentee a seriously camping team 6 rounds.........is that really progress?

sorry but at the moment if a non-camping team are fighting a camping team - and take a casualty the remaining guy only has to take out one camper (hard enough at the best of times to find let alone kill) but now he has to take out both of them..... i think your asking too much of that poor soldier - who once could have made a quick strike and then held for the draw - now he has to commit suicide!

ok i know i am exagerating a little bit here...maybe, but i hope you see my side of things also - guarenting a good camping team 6 of the 12 wins is really saying that this is how you must play - or to be so outstandingly good that you can overcome all odds and rush in and nail em and i would say that the only guys who could expect a win doing that would most likely be cheating!

ok as i say i hope you can see my point also here - lets give the new rules a go - i hope to be proven wrong! too late now anyway - he he

good luck all - may the long nights be merry ones - lol

oh btw in reply to your "def camps in objective games" - well they are objective games right! it's one of the differences of the game type - this rule removes that difference!

anyway - i mean no disrespect here guys you have 100% support from me - just discussing thats all
Post edited by [sp@z]_d@i at 4/4/2003 11:58:55 AM

1. Yes I understand ur "just discussing"..thats the point of the post..also its not done or anyhting..this is asking for interest..

2. You have still not understood m8..lol.. how do you mean it would take longer then earlier?!! As it is now a match can go for 84 min wihtout one shot fired if both camps, and then end in 12 ties before MOUT.. with these rules nothing would be different except that it would be 6-6 when u go to MOUT.. so that has in no way been made worse.. the whole point is to remove both teams camping matches.. and probably this will be faster as I would go in and try to kill the Enemys on assault..and I have no clue what ur saying here.. must be cheating to win on assa ?! have you never won a round on assault playing objective?!! This is the same, just easier as 1/2 and then survive is enough...

Also the objective of combat is the players, which means Def still defend a obj sort of and assault attacks a obj.

"with both def sides camping the games will go on for hours"
This sounds like you maybe should read my first post again..there is no ties.. one team wins after 7 min guranteed..so how could this go on for more time then any match?!

AND - lets hear you suggestions on how to promote less camping The whole point here is that the players that want a change should come up with a good way.
Post edited by Da_Champ at 4/4/2003 12:55:32 PM

not sure about me not getting your point - i have said several times i understand what your saying! - i think it is you not seeing the other side of things!

yesy your right when you do get 2 big camping teams the war does indeed go on forever now! - but i am sure a lot of us do not camp that much and as such the wars are quite quick - in fact i think we have only had 2 wars go over an hour (and we lost those - lol).

let me see if i can put this another way m8 - at the moment (and i do understand that assault CAN camp as well) defence in the majority of maps has much more oppourtunity to camp - it is after all how the maps are designed (assaulting a defended area)! by making it so that def has so much of an advantage you are guarenteeing the def team to camp and thus almost forcing camping on def - yes assault will assault more - but that will make winning an assault round even harder than it is now!

maybe it would work better the other way round - make it so that def have to attack - this means in most maps that assault will still have to move out in order to find a covered camping area - and allow the def team (who then have to attack) an oppoutunity to attack quick and hard - as the assault guys try to dig in!

i think it would be more balenced this way aroud and promote far less camping (however i am still not convinced - he he

oh poo got to go - may think more on this later on!

I understadn what ur saying m8, but I think your view is a bit limited to be honest..I can imagine that when u guys play u mainly run around etc..well I played about 20 2v2 fights so far and half of them have been camp partys by both teams, due to how the rules is shaped.

I like your idea of reveresed so Def have to attack..have to consider that one a bit.. also.. if there is to be any changes..need to see more opionons in here! (if not Ill start lighting that fire and tune the guitarr once more)

yup no point in 2 maybe three guys discussing over this. c'mon where are all the guys that has said that me and champ are camping [cencored word]. this is your opportunity to change stuff.

As far as suggestions i think your suggestion is good d@i that defense must be the one to assault. makes for a more dynamic gameplay.

And even odds out as you state d@i

that would get as i see it get the following two big effects.
1.A definite lestening of camping -usaually there aren't that many places for assault to camp without having to move far on the most maps.

2.If assault wants to win by keeping out of the way the best places might be hiding inside the "defense" area.
Wich enables more dynamic gameplay.

And i aswell would like to see more interest in this thread.
If you don't like campers well. this is your way to force them out of it.....



Post edited by C.Fransson at 4/4/2003 3:05:12 PM

/action Slaps you with a dead opfor.

I'm against this camping bussiness but also not sure bout these rules. Like you said in another thread Champ. Once you spawn there is no such thing as Defense or Assault.
It's just 2 teams fighting each other. You said it was waiting for extraction or something like that. Well you have too survive for 7 minutes. No prob. But why should assault be disadvantaged. We both have to be assault yes but still it isn't that fair. It's giving more advantage to Defense and giving them another reason to camp a little more. There has to be a solution for this prob but it's not gonna be easy. It's a good effort though. But it will only get rid of the assault campers. Not the defense ones. So basically it stays the same. We should give it a shot but i wouldn't expect too much of it. And thnx for considering rule changes cause of the numerous complaints. Although you like em very much

Skinny

well i think if we are going to change then it should be the def team who are disadvantaged not assault - but then i have prolly said too much already anyway - lol

Well i am to go with anything pretty much but here is my opinion.When we start playing this ladder,it was wierd couse all of that camping and we lost 3 in a row. but after we figurit it out and start playing with rules we got used to it and i must say i like it.
why?its sopose to be combat ladder, not objective or assault and defence ladder?
this rules are for it.its completly different type and style of the game.if u rush u easily get killed, but if u both camp it will be all draw. so basicly this is game of cool head, precise tactic which include assaulting when needed and falling back camping when u r in advantage. i think it gives game new level of strategy. all other ladders are objective ones with lot of action. for ones who want pure action. GO PLAY UT AND Q3!!!!
this ladder is exelent strategy game, got all tactical options that arent been used in objective ladders is here. and i like it more and more, it realy brings fresh changes into TWL.

As for this changes u were disscusing, well all of propositions wont change camping by more then 10%. Example:
1. Assault takes 1 e out, and it will surely fall back(if they r smart that is)
2. Defence will camp even more cause the bugest risk for them is assaulting enemy, and lowes is to camp.
etc etc....

for me this is exelent ladder where is great games hide and seek, ruch and fall back, hit and run,patience, u got it all here. if u camp u wont win, if u rush u can get into a trap....it is awsome!!!!!!strategy guys!!!


Post edited by NATO_BlueDragon at 4/4/2003 6:04:32 PM

Though I'm not in the ladder, I like these rules.

The rule to make assault actualy assault makes sense as its their job to do so. You will still see on the other hand a certain amount of camping on assault. If they can get one opfor... are they going to risk the whole round trying to get the other guy? I think not... so that would just make it the same as before.
As for defense, well, its their duty to camp out and defend their position just as its done in the obj ladders. It would make the match more intense if defense were to assault as well, but I see it acceptable the way it is.
I fully disagree with the rule to grant defense the victory in case of both teams stay with the same amount of players alive in the end of the time limit, that should be considered a tie.
But camping is just part of the 2v2 ladder and allways will be. I dont see it as malicious camping, but a strategy or tactic used to win the round and match.
Those are my 2 cents, i'll post more if I think of something ealse.

Thanks to both NATO guys for posting I also enjoy it as it is now a lot, but what I dont enjoy is fights where both teams just simply stand still at same sport for 84 min and then fight it off at mckenna.. and thats mainly what I want to avoid..to avoid this you must in some way force one of the teams to attack the other.

That assault can go in and take one guy out then go out and camp..well that just makes it a bit less advantged for def i think.

About assault and defense..well thats mainly just names.. at least as of now.. another way to go is having Def to assault which Dai suggested..think that could be cool..?

I didnt respond in this thread because it said for the euro ladder and not ours, Da Champ this sounds like a good idea and would be in favor of any change to the 2vs2 ladder.

hmm hey guys. Please remember that champ's proposal is not in anyway in effect so by all means voice your opinion on it. But better yet. voice your alternatives/suggestions on rules etc.
Thoughts that you've played with anything at all might prove a good idea.

/action Slaps you with a dead opfor.

I agree with you De_champ about it sucks if both teams camp out whole game, but in practice that is hardly posible. as for sugestions that were beeen made, my opinion is camping can be lowered only with serious rules changes which will turn this into objective ladder or it will likely put one side into great dissadvantage.With just few rule changes we can't lower camping more then 10% and i think its not worth it.
But i am open to any sugestions that will resovle this camping isue but keep combat style of this ladder.

As for campers, my message to them is.......i'll try super hard to kill one of you at first round and then i will fall back........then u can camp till the end of the world if u want !!!!

The way it's going now with some teams camping "because it is allowed by the rules" (yes it is, do what u like) is just BOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING
These new rules will help. I want them

rgr that deleon. If you have anything to add or subtract from all of these proposal please make your voice heard about any of the specific rules. anything you want to add etc?
/action Slaps you with a dead opfor.

One off the NATO guys said that Assault has to assault. Well there is no assault or defense in this game. It's COMBAT. Champ in these posts you say you wanna avoid camping and fight it out at Mckenna. Well your team is the best at doing this. Really. Fransson also agrees with deleon that camping is boring. Why the change of mind all of a sudden?? When i said something about you almost bit my nose off.

Skinny

Originally posted by: [v75th]SkinnyD

One off the NATO guys said that Assault has to assault. Well there is no assault or defense in this game. It's COMBAT. Champ in these posts you say you wanna avoid camping and fight it out at Mckenna. Well your team is the best at doing this. Really. Fransson also agrees with deleon that camping is boring. Why the change of mind all of a sudden?? When i said something about you almost bit my nose off.

Skinny

Well..this is mainly me as ladder admin bringing up opions I heard from the players. As a player, I dont mind the rules that much now.. but its a big difference between me camping cause it makes me win and me camping cause I jsut love sitting still...I play rambo-like on publics etc, the only reason I dont do that in a match is cause its not the best way to win. Thereby not said that Camping not can be exciting and fun too, but for 84 min its not so fun.
Post edited by Da_Champ at 4/5/2003 2:45:52 PM

Skinny>Sitting 84 min where the only fire is 1 medium burst of blind fire is not fun. however if it gets the win i'm doing it. i'm just trying to debate around champs proposal.
/action Slaps you with a dead opfor.

And i'm all for anything that will make 2v2 fighting funnier and more dynamic.
/action Slaps you with a dead opfor.

I thought about this and... no didnt think of a any better solution So have a vote on those "new rules" up ASAP plz. Those rules won't even change the way most teams play anyways, but no def attackin stupid scenarios plz ...and yes there's nuthin wrong with campin its just kinda stupid if both teams do it simultaneously, so that really needs to change

-Someday, somewhere, EB will roxxor

Originally posted by: Mikko777

I thought about this and... no didnt think of a any better solution So have a vote on those "new rules" up ASAP plz. Those rules won't even change the way most teams play anyways, but no def attackin stupid scenarios plz ...and yes there's nuthin wrong with campin its just kinda stupid if both teams do it simultaneously, so that really needs to change

-Someday, somewhere, EB will roxxor

Takes more than five or six people discussing it to warrant a vote. Let's wait to see what kinda of intrest it draws.

psicotic1
Teamwarfare Senior Operations Staff

Originally posted by: C.Fransson

rgr that deleon. If you have anything to add or subtract from all of these proposal please make your voice heard about any of the specific rules. anything you want to add etc?

Not atm, I think I would very much like these rules to be tested in the games.
Good suggestion Champ

I'm not in EU 2x2 ladder but I am in the other 2x2 ladder. I would also like to see Da_Champ's new rule proposal tried out. Sounds like a good idea!