vmax
Server Admin
ET is old. But then, so am I.
Posts: 105
|
Post by vmax on Aug 21, 2016 11:59:38 GMT -5
Playing a 2v2 this AM Allies capped the flag on Battery. As Engie, I went in through the front and blew the back mg, the back door, and the magnetic locks. Is this okay? Necron and I have differing views...what does the QAW quorum say?
Thanks! -V-
|
|
|
Post by TheNecrons on Aug 21, 2016 12:09:35 GMT -5
Thank you.
Just saying, mg, generator and also cp are ok. The question is: can the back be blown from the inside in 2v2 games?
|
|
DaBastard
Server Admin
a covy let me in ;)
Posts: 393
|
Post by DaBastard on Aug 21, 2016 12:40:53 GMT -5
Hopefully there will be a 'formal ruling' on this by a QAW.
I'm guessing you shouldn't blow the back door with a dyno on a 2v2.
If the axis could repair it and close it again, I would see that as even.
But since it can't be repaired, I would think it falls under 'no back'.
CP, going back or front. MG, generator all in play through the front.
As a covy I steal uni's on games less than 5v5. I won't sneak in the back, but feel it's fair to go through the front and blow generator.
I 'interpret' no back to mean 'don't blow back door with dyno', I would think from inside or out.
Having (2) entrances for allies makes it pretty hard for axis to defend on that map. If allies 'blow the back', then it's fair that axis can satchel the ramp.
my 2c, certainly not the final word. Since it's a 'gentleman's agreement' anyhow, allies could ask axis if fair to blow back from inside, and see what they say.
|
|
kats
Seen a few campaigns
Posts: 69
|
Post by kats on Aug 21, 2016 13:32:14 GMT -5
I have blown back door from inside to gain xp before I reach level 4 during game with less than 6v6, but not to gain entry from the rear.
|
|
|
Post by LogDog on Aug 21, 2016 14:13:45 GMT -5
A lot depends on the axis cove and the ramp
|
|
|
Post by oZ{QAW} on Aug 21, 2016 15:43:51 GMT -5
Oh boy, here we go again. (This is just a personal opinion and by no means should it be considered an official point of view from QAW) There is no rule about this and as I have seen, it really depends on who is playing at the time. For me the easiest is: anything goes, regardless of the amount of players. I think blowing up the back from the inside or outside, generator or the gate itself (for xp or whatever reason) should be off-limits if we are playing under a “no back agreement”. The whole reason (as I see it) for this kind of agreement is for axis not to have to worry about protecting the back and be able to concentrate their defense on the front. Once the back is open (generator, or gate blown) this means the reason for the “agreement” is useless and the small defending team will have to focus on both fronts. Another aspect to consider is that if the “agreement” is respected and axis has a lvl 4 fop constantly dropping arty on the ramp, it is almost impossible to get through and it becomes frustrating for allies. There are just too many things to consider and fairness will always depend on who is playing and what team they are on. I have seen players who will blow up the generator as allies, but when they are axis will throw a fit if this is done. For all this, my personal opinion is the map should be played with no additional rules or agreements and we can avoid many arguments during game play. oZ
|
|
|
Post by TheNecrons on Aug 21, 2016 17:50:36 GMT -5
I agree with the fop thingy. For me it's no back, no stachel and no arty.
Since it's an agreement, players should ask if no back no stachel at the begininig of the map. And if someone does not agree, he have to say it immediatly. If you don't speak, then it's unfair (for me) that you go back/stachel. An agreement is an agreement. You have to be clear. And if you wanna to change idea after the agreement, you have to tell the players first (just let them know..then do whatever you want).
|
|
|
Post by SCOUT on Aug 21, 2016 19:28:43 GMT -5
My experience has been that most of the time no one really sticks to the agreement. As a result I pretty much just say "screw it." Even if no one plants at the back, the axis will have 2 coverts and 2 Fops just killing the ramp. It works out pretty fairly when everyone is on board with small teams, otherwise it's just a free for all that requires a lot of hustle from the Axis.
|
|
|
Post by Lion{QAW} on Aug 22, 2016 6:38:35 GMT -5
Did we really see better games since this agreement got introduced?
|
|
|
Post by TheNecrons on Aug 22, 2016 8:35:35 GMT -5
Once the back is blown, and the forward bunker is captured, for me the game is not funny anymore as axis Just running here and there in annoying long places...to reach the gun or generator..without knowing from where the enemy entered, since there are too many ways to reach them. Frustrating. Defending/attacking back is funnies thing in the map, imo. But also defending/attacking front, with few players and no arty is funny.
|
|
|
Post by mcbain{QAW} on Aug 24, 2016 17:56:40 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2016 22:10:46 GMT -5
If I may add my opinion, I believe this should remain the way it is: a gentleman's agreement. You don't exactly make any friends by going to the back door in 2v2, but you're well within your rights to do so. The map is still winnable by axis even in small games, and it's not much harder than other maps like radar.
|
|
|
Post by TheNecrons on Aug 25, 2016 10:58:09 GMT -5
Thanks McB.
|
|
|
Post by TheNecrons on Aug 25, 2016 11:04:01 GMT -5
Imo, as i said, people should speak what they are going to do. The agreemnt's goal is to make the game fair. If axis has like 2 pro fraggers, and allies less skilled players, i'd personally say that i'm goiong to back In 2v2 games the fragging is all that counts. But it's really bad when you make an agreement and then do whatever you want without saying anything. ET is a game, but in QAW you play it only with humans. And when you interact with humans, there should be respect.
|
|
|
Post by SpaceAge_Pimp{QAW} on Aug 25, 2016 12:01:28 GMT -5
You beat me to it, Brains. The link above is the oldest original thread discussing the Battery agreement, which is "5v5 = Back Door is OK". IMO, the sooner this agreement is abolished (again), the sooner Battery will once again be a decent map to play for Axis. It simply comes down to the fact that you can count on an Allies player to *-up the agreement, so why bother in the first place - every time.... o0 **ALSO** Keep in mind that there are many who agree, that even a UNI'd covy should not go through, or let anyone into the regular back door either. I personally disagree, as going through that door UNI'd was part of the original map. Also, what happens when its 4v4 and 2 players then join and go for the Back which is then 'fair'...? Too many variables!! Lion - no, the agreement only causes confusion. You really need the teams to be filled with regs to even have a chance at a full, "agreemented" map. Never worth it, usually VMax - Playing the agreement, you shouldn't have planted Back at all, but again, maybe it wouldn't have mattered if there was rightfully no agreement Necrons - i told you it was 5v5! Lets get rid of this 'rule'! Axis should plan on guarding Back. You're probably going to have to anyway.
|
|
|
Post by tonofclay{QAW} on Aug 25, 2016 12:23:37 GMT -5
Not that it's really going to change anything, but here's another vote for phasing out this silly agreement. I always cringe when players start yelling and going crazy about going back or using satchel, I imagine it to be horribly off putting to someone who might not have ever played at the server before. I see this happen a lot with the actual rules too and that's bad enough but at least those ones are officially written down and agreed upon. I think it would be best for everyone to just forget this no back/no satchel nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by TheNecrons on Aug 25, 2016 12:59:23 GMT -5
Well, I don't even find it good to blow back in a 2v2, and find no resistence there. What's the point imo? Just run, run, reach back door and plant dyna? So, it's just a matter of winning? At least i would say that i'm going to blow back, so there's a bit of challenge. Imho, we have to have fun with this game. Not only winning. (It's an multi-PLAYER GAME, right?) @space: yes, you were right, it was 5v5. But i wonder why most people keep talking about "6v6"?
|
|
|
Post by SpaceAge_Pimp{QAW} on Aug 25, 2016 16:31:13 GMT -5
Well, I don't even find it good to blow back in a 2v2, and find no resistence there. What's the point imo? Just run, run, reach back door and plant dyna? So, it's just a matter of winning? At least i would say that i'm going to blow back, so there's a bit of challenge. Imho, we have to have fun with this game. Not only winning. (It's an multi-PLAYER GAME, right?) @space: yes, you were right, it was 5v5. But i wonder why most people keep talking about "6v6"? Because they're mistaken! This is a confusing rule for everyone. People end-up wanting this PLUS no arty or no this/no that. It's an agreement that was made by someone who only plays Allies, as it only benefits them in the end That's a lie btw. Anyway, there's too much about this agreement that is too hard, if not impossible to control, hence why some find it an annoyance. No harm in trying to play with the agreement, but I recommend that every Axis player be ready for what awaits them
|
|
|
Post by mcbain{QAW} on Aug 25, 2016 17:09:00 GMT -5
The "no back" rule is about as ironclad as my "knives only" rule when I am tired or no one else is online.
|
|
|
Post by Relevance{QAW} on Aug 26, 2016 17:43:18 GMT -5
Ill be completely honest. I want to start rushing back on 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and up. Just because of the nonsense this nonexsistent rule has caused...
|
|
Daddy
Server Admin
Posts: 328
|
Post by Daddy on Aug 26, 2016 17:44:20 GMT -5
Oh boy, here we go again. (This is just a personal opinion and by no means should it be considered an official point of view from QAW) There is no rule about this and as I have seen, it really depends on who is playing at the time. For me the easiest is: anything goes, regardless of the amount of players. I think blowing up the back from the inside or outside, generator or the gate itself (for xp or whatever reason) should be off-limits if we are playing under a “no back agreement”. The whole reason (as I see it) for this kind of agreement is for axis not to have to worry about protecting the back and be able to concentrate their defense on the front. Once the back is open (generator, or gate blown) this means the reason for the “agreement” is useless and the small defending team will have to focus on both fronts. Another aspect to consider is that if the “agreement” is respected and axis has a lvl 4 fop constantly dropping arty on the ramp, it is almost impossible to get through and it becomes frustrating for allies. There are just too many things to consider and fairness will always depend on who is playing and what team they are on. I have seen players who will blow up the generator as allies, but when they are axis will throw a fit if this is done. For all this, my personal opinion is the map should be played with no additional rules or agreements and we can avoid many arguments during game play. oZ Well said Oz...I agree from the 'oh boy' right through to the period after 'play'. I'm more than happy to agree with any gentlemen's agreement made so long as all do the same. But, I have never believed that this map could not be defended by Axis no matter how small the teams. (just one man's opinion)
|
|
|
Post by SpaceAge_Pimp{QAW} on Aug 27, 2016 11:03:15 GMT -5
Ill be completely honest. I want to start rushing back on 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and up. Just because of the nonsense this nonexsistent rule has caused... The Ton maneuver?!! Might as well though until ppl get used to NO agreement
|
|
|
Post by TheNecrons on Aug 27, 2016 11:06:06 GMT -5
The one thing we need to understand about 1v1, 2v2 battles, is that it quite all depends of the fragging skills of the players. Let's say it's 2v2, and I decide to defend back, while my teammate is on front. If i'm against Kats at back, it would be a pretty fair game, and i would be liking it and not complaining about the fact back is on. But if i find one very good fragger, or a someone new to the game it wouln't be a funny game anymore. I would prefere that both teams act as a group (everyone at front.....or why not everyone at a back ). Just for fun and challenge. With this i'm not saying we should make some kind of agreements. I want just to show some motivations that can push people to do so. Personally, i wouldn't like an unfair battle, wherever it is (front or back). But i know, this way, it would be very hard to make agreements with all the players...
|
|
|
Post by hoff{QAW} on Aug 27, 2016 13:37:10 GMT -5
:::walks in the room ... rolls eyes... steps out of the room:::
|
|
Daddy
Server Admin
Posts: 328
|
Post by Daddy on Aug 27, 2016 14:21:00 GMT -5
:::walks in the room ... rolls eyes... steps out of the room::: That's right Hoff...I came to the party. Roll your eyes all you want but Oz invited me. Huh?? Watcha mean Oz wasn't invited either?? Oooooozzzzzz!?!?!
|
|
|
Post by hoff{QAW} on Aug 27, 2016 15:08:55 GMT -5
:::walks in the room ... rolls eyes... steps out of the room::: That's right Hoff...I came to the party. Roll your eyes all you want but Oz invited me. Huh?? Watcha mean Oz wasn't invited either?? Oooooozzzzzz!?!?! hahahahaha
|
|
|
Post by oZ{QAW} on Aug 27, 2016 16:44:47 GMT -5
:::walks in the room ... rolls eyes... steps out of the room::: That's right Hoff...I came to the party. Roll your eyes all you want but Oz invited me. Huh?? Watcha mean Oz wasn't invited either?? Oooooozzzzzz!?!?! shhhh now we will have to leave the room too!!
|
|
|
Post by Lethal on Aug 28, 2016 4:58:03 GMT -5
|
|
Daddy
Server Admin
Posts: 328
|
Post by Daddy on Aug 28, 2016 11:38:42 GMT -5
That's right Hoff...I came to the party. Roll your eyes all you want but Oz invited me. Huh?? Watcha mean Oz wasn't invited either?? Oooooozzzzzz!?!?! shhhh now we will have to leave the room too!! V583
|
|
filthy
Seen a few campaigns
Posts: 59
|
Post by filthy on Aug 29, 2016 8:52:44 GMT -5
Switch to stopwatch and allow it.
|
|