AGN: Community Clash Recording TXR and MERC vs NNG and TGWW - Page 6

kidriot · 2013-09-27, 10:50 AM

I'm gonna give my thoughts on the issue (for whatever they're worth). Bear in mind I have no control over the rules of Community Clash. I only provide articles and reviews on the subject.

To expect one person - in this case Torkz - to properly scout out outfits that are going to participate in the CC, every week, to ensure outfits are fielding primary members is absurd. Community Clash runs on a minimum of resources. One person writes the rules and one person enforces them during a match. Stack community stuff (that's done for free and willingly!), family, work and even play time, not to mention other responsibilities on top of outfit scouting is expecting a lot from 1-2 people. It requires a team of people to stay on top of this and I don't even think MLG will be fielding that team to ensure the stability of the matches.

The primary issue I'm seeing with the people TGWW fielded is they weren't viewed as primary characters in the outfit. They're a group of friends who bounce factions and outfits because they all play similar styles instead of being one outfit who focuses on one faction. You can't blame them if they want to fight people of their caliber in the air for creating such a situation on Mattherson, but I can see where problems might arise. The only plausible way this could or could not be acceptable is if there was an official ruling by MLG (governing body) and SOE (designer). This won't happen for a very long time.

Community Clash is a community run effort by very few people to ensure a quality, stable and entertaining platform for outfits to run competitive matches. Competitive in this sense of the word simply means that - competition. There are no rewards for winning a Community Clash. You could even say that the matches aren't 100% fair because spawn beacons and squad deploy aren't working and I'd agree with you, but we're not the makers of the game only players. So what options do we have? Should we postpone all further Comm Clash matches until this gets worked out? No, because we could be waiting a long time and the arguments presented in this thread are proof that people want to compete. People want to fight outfit vs outfit, not because there's future glory or money or prizes to be won, but because we're competitive players by nature and we like the thrill of the challenge.

If I were in TGWW's shoes I'd have done the same thing. Bring my 12 best friends that not only play with us on a consistent basis, but play against us when we want to feel challenged in the air. They could have simply invited the "ringers" to the outfit a few days before and it would qualify those people as outfit members, even if they were a low BR. Can every outfit do this? Yes. Should every outfit do this? No. The only reason it worked in TGWW's favor is because they've all worked together before. It wasn't a spur of the moment decision. TGWW has stated they knew exactly who to bring to the match which gives the impression that some experience and preparation went into the CC. If it had been cross server people joining, say for example, FC decides to fight for NNG then I'd have to call those players ringers in the true sense.

Some outfits run a strict policy regarding membership. Your character in the outfit must be your primary character. We ran Recursion like that when we started to get more recruits and NUC runs like that. Do Recursion and NUC have players in other factions? Yes, but they're not their primaries. Some outfits are run like communities where it's acceptable to have members in various outfits and the outfit runs like a hangout - where people can play there when they wish. TGWW seems to run like that and there's nothing wrong with it. You can't expect all outfits to have the same structure. If you all agree that all outfits shouldn't be forced to run the same way then you'd have to agree that what TGWW wasn't wrong.

What prevents outfits from simply getting the best players on the server to fight under one banner for a CC? Simple: teamwork and cohesion aren't guaranteed simply because you have the top killers on a server. In TGWW's case of bringing in friends it worked, because they have the experience of playing together, in other cases it would be an absolute disaster.

The last CC wasn't tainted at all. Mistakes were made on both sides and TGWW capitalized on the TR outfits not protecting their most precious resource in The Nexus: their Sunderers. How you go about protecting the Sunderers and ensuring you have forward spawns is up to the individual outfits. The TR got outplayed in the air and paid for it dearly. It was a close game till the later part of the second half when VS began to run away with it. It was due to the freedom allowed to the Liberators because TR wasn't able to fight them in the sky. If you argue those points then you're arguing something completely different than the primary issue. The primary issue being discussed is, "What makes an outfit an outfit?"

The answers for that question vary and in varying allow for more expectations and potential for dynamic play on both live servers and especially in The Nexus where there's no outside influence.

People get testy when they lose. They sometimes get bitter and that's ok, but it shouldn't devolve into the shit flinging I've read in these forums.

Let me ask you guys this, if TR had won do you think the arguments posted in this thread would even exist? Go back to the drawing board, learn what you can from this match and move forward. That's what winners do every time they lose.

TorinPS · 2013-09-27, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by kidriot

Let me ask you guys this, if TR had won do you think the arguments posted in this thread would even exist? Go back to the drawing board, learn what you can from this match and move forward. That's what winners do every time they lose.

Nope. In fact I think I can speak for most of us (TGWW) when I say that I'm looking forward to the outfit that can beat us handily in the air. I know NUC has a lot of good Liberators (pilots and gunners) and some good ESF pilots. I am very interested to see how we will stack up in a 48v48.

We've been longing for some serious competition for a while now. We end up playing cross-faction against each other simply for a challenge, because when we roll together in public PS2, it's just a joke. I'm not trying to brag, but we throw too much skill and experience, and the average players just don't deal with it. 'Air zerg' is what it feels like, and half of us get bored, log out of VS, and log onto TR or NC to be competition.

I honestly don't know what the big deal is here. We fielded the guys we've been expecting to field for months now. We won a scrimmage. There will be many others. We didn't go around bragging about anything, flaunt anything. A very select few in MERC tried to rub our win in the mud, because they are sore losers. I don't blame all of MERC. I can understand legitimately the complaints. I can comprehend how it might appear sketchy. But to us, we just played with the guys we have played with for a great many months. Everything was on the up and up. I was looking forward to some interesting discourse/analysis on the topic, then this shit.

C'est la vie and all, I just hope we, as a community, can get past this petty sore loser bickering shit. We'll gladly go up against any outfit in Planetside 2, hopefully next time people won't be bitching when we field the same 15 guys.

Hamma · 2013-09-27, 11:20 AM

Recording is live.

EVILPIG · 2013-09-27, 11:42 AM

Stacking is stacking. It doesn't matter if outfits are bringing in players because they play together often. If it's to become the norm to bring in whoever you need, then these matches should not be advertised as "X outfit vs Y outfit" any longer, as they are not true representations of such.

retrogreq · 2013-09-27, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Stacking is stacking. It doesn't matter if outfits are bringing in players because they play together often. If it's to become the norm to bring in whoever you need, then these matches should not be advertised as "X outfit vs Y outfit" any longer, as they are not true representations of such.

That boils down to what you define as an "outfit". Semantics.

The MLG precedent is pretty obvious if you read the rule-set on the MLG website. Some of the time-frames are different in TWL or cevo (24 hours prior to the match vs 6 hours), but all the rules for roster changes are the same. I think most of these complaints are coming from people unfamiliar with how competition, teams, ladders, and things like that actually work. If/when the actual ladder starts, and it isn't just scrims, QRY, Notorious, and TGWW would pick one of these tags to represent, and all fight together. You won't be seeing both/all in the same ladder (unless teams get narrowed down to under 4-8 per side, then we would likely fight under different tags to keep things interesting.)

EVILPIG · 2013-09-27, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by retrogreq

That boils down to what you define as an "outfit". Semantics.

The MLG precedent is pretty obvious if you read the rule-set on the MLG website. Some of the time-frames are different in TWL or cevo (24 hours prior to the match vs 6 hours), but all the rules for roster changes are the same. I think most of these complaints are coming from people unfamiliar with how competition, teams, ladders, and things like that actually work. If/when the actual ladder starts, and it isn't just scrims, QRY, Notorious, and TGWW would pick one of these tags to represent, and all fight together. You won't be seeing both/all in the same ladder (unless teams get narrowed down to under 4-8 per side, then we would likely fight under different tags to keep things interesting.)

First of all, this isn't MLG. Second, it doesn't matter what I define an "outfit" is, PS2 does that for us.

I'm not knocking anyone here, I just don't believe these matches should be advertised as particular outfits, if the outfits involved are just going to grab the best players they can from others. As in your MLG example, name the team and note which outfits are involved.

retrogreq · 2013-09-27, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

First of all, this isn't MLG. Second, it doesn't matter what I define an "outfit" is, PS2 does that for us.

I'm not knocking anyone here, I just don't believe these matches should be advertised as particular outfits, if the outfits involved are just going to grab the best players they can from others. As in your MLG example, name the team and note which outfits are involved.

This is a scrim to test how this map would behave in an MLG ladder, is it not?

You need to re-read the thread, we didn't just grab the best players we could find from other outfits. You simply sound like you don't know what is going on.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-09-27, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by retrogreq

This is a scrim to test how this map would behave in an MLG ladder, is it not?

You need to re-read the thread, we didn't just grab the best players we could find from other outfits. You simply sound like you don't know what is going on.

This is an outfit vs outfit competition. The problem is you brought people into your outfit the last minute as ringers to be more competitive. I bet you guys like to pad your stats by shooting through spawn room shields too.

EVILPIG · 2013-09-27, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by retrogreq

This is a scrim to test how this map would behave in an MLG ladder, is it not?

You need to re-read the thread, we didn't just grab the best players we could find from other outfits. You simply sound like you don't know what is going on.

The mistake is on your end. I am not talking about you or any particular outfit. I have stated my opinion on stacking teams.

Dreadnaut · 2013-09-27, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Stacking is stacking. It doesn't matter if outfits are bringing in players because they play together often. If it's to become the norm to bring in whoever you need, then these matches should not be advertised as "X outfit vs Y outfit" any longer, as they are not true representations of such.

Except we didn't stack our team.

I'm a member of TGWW on VS on Mattherson
I'm a member of QRY on NC on Mattherson
I'm a member of TGRW on TR on Mattherson

This game wouldn't be any fun for me if I was stuck playing 1 faction. I'd have quit a LONG time ago. I just prefer to play VS because the majority of my friends when I started the game went to VS. Now I couldn't tell you where the majority of my friends play, because it's everywhere, on all factions, on multiple servers.

I also play 3 other characters on different servers (Connery/Waterson) with names I don't share so I can play without people hunting me specifically because that happens enough as it is right now. Some of you may not even know it's me, in your outfits, playing right along side you and always typing because 'my mic is broken...'. There are times when I just want to play, and not be bothered.

The guys that play with us do the same thing, they play multiple factions, and when they play VS, they play with us. This is our team.

What MERC/TxR saw was maybe 80% of the guys we've got slated for our competitive team, and they're very solid. We haven't yet finalized our competitive roster but it's only going to get better with several more very skilled players who want to compete but don't have a team to compete with. The same 12-16 pilots can't always be available for every single match so we need the right numbers so that every time we're called upon we're read.

I don't care what faction my teammates have their highest BR character on, if they have the skill and want to compete with us, it doesn't matter. We have some low level guys that are awesome that we have to pull aircraft for on the regular while they level up, but they are no less a member than I am with 1000 hours on my VS toon. The guys that play with us are only competing on VS at this time. To my knowledge there isn't anyone on our roster that's on another competitive team playing matches like the Community Clash. If there are, it's news to me.

TorinPS · 2013-09-27, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Stacking is stacking. It doesn't matter if outfits are bringing in players because they play together often. If it's to become the norm to bring in whoever you need, then these matches should not be advertised as "X outfit vs Y outfit" any longer, as they are not true representations of such.

There is 'Stacking' and then there is 'STACKING'.

Every competitive team I know of, 'Stacks' to the greatest extent possible. 'Stacking' can be loosely defined as recruiting the best people possible to create the strongest team possible. In professional sports, this is done via a draft. Every team aims to create the most potent roster possible, stacked with the most talent possible. In Planetside, this is mostly assumed that higher level competitive teams have recruited, if not actively (hey you are good will you join my outfit?), at least passively. (people wanting to join because they are good and you are good, etc.) TGWW had a mix of both over the many months we've been playing as an outfit. There were a handful of people that always played with us, on VS or NC or TR, and were simply not formally added to the outfit. As talks of competitive gameplay came about, we all basically committed to being on the same team. That team turned out to be TGWW.

Then there is 'STACKING', which is the act of creating the most powerful team possible, not over time, not through functional recruiting efforts, but some essentially 'back-room' or 'under-handed' "hey, come join our outfit for a day so you can be a ringer for us". This usually involves knowing all the best people and being 'in good enough' with them that they would be willing to 'go undercover' and join your team in an effort to create an overpowered team for no other purpose than having an overpowered team. This is the type of deceitful roster building that the RCCC rule was aiming to eliminate. This is absolutely not what TGWW has been doing, at all.

NUC has been 'Stacking' for quite some time. They recruit a lot of the best people on Waterson, TR, NC or VS, get them to join NUC as a permanent member. They've got a lot of great players. When NUC played in the RCCC, nobody bitched and moaned about them having recruited a bunch of good people.

We only caught this drama because:

1) Some dudes in MERC and/or TXR were butthurt about a scrim loss, and it's easier to blame someone else than acknowledge reality. To be fair to like 99% of them, this was definitely an exception.
2) We only technically added people to the TGWW outfit at the last minute, in an attempt to make it within what we perceived as some people's inevitably interpretation of the rule. We've all played together for a long time, and have been a competitive group for many many months. We just only recently formalized it by making sure everyone was technically an outfit member.

If you think part 2 is 'STACKING', then I'm sorry you can't come to terms with reality.

Sardus · 2013-09-27, 11:45 AM

I look at the air thing from a different perspective.

Every enemy player in the air is one less player on the ground. You have the numbers advantage when it comes to holding indoor points. Even if they have the hard spawn in a tower or something, and you don't.

Getting there is the trick. If you're able to get to the target and bring your A game of medics and engineers, you don't need that Sundy spawn. You just hold the point with the higher infantry/max leverage.

Doesn't always work of course. But that's what I often do. It forces them to either come out of the air vehicles (because even if you kill them they will just pull another), or lose the ground game.

Lepalose · 2013-09-27, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Sardus

I look at the air thing from a different perspective.

Every enemy player in the air is one less player on the ground. You have the numbers advantage when it comes to holding indoor points. Even if they have the hard spawn in a tower or something, and you don't.

Getting there is the trick. If you're able to get to the target and bring your A game of medics and engineers, you don't need that Sundy spawn. You just hold the point with the higher infantry/max leverage.

Doesn't always work of course. But that's what I often do. It forces them to either come out of the air vehicles (because even if you kill them they will just pull another), or lose the ground game.

Your third paragraph was the issue we had. After the air was under VS control every push we did, even to defend bases, we had to go back to warpgate and pull resources to get back into the fight. Not only for Sunderers & Galaxies (which both would be hit or destroyed before moving out past the first line of bases) but also for the AA resources to deter their air.

Definitely a huge drain on resources and time to do this considering the current form of the Nexus' spawn mechanics, as well as having no spawn beacons or ability to squad deploy.

Getting an infantry force set up anywhere becomes a matter of attrition from air attacks, as there is not any safe locations for sunderers, or, broadly, from spawn room to capture points when defending.

On Live, that is something we do quite often too Sardus, but on Nexus it plays out very differently.

Dreadnaut · 2013-09-27, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Lepalose

Definitely a huge drain on resources and time to do this considering the current form of the Nexus' spawn mechanics, as well as having no spawn beacons or ability to squad deploy.

Getting an infantry force set up anywhere becomes a matter of attrition from air attacks, as there is not any safe locations for sunderers, or, broadly, from spawn room to capture points when defending.

On Live, that is something we do quite often too Sardus, but on Nexus it plays out very differently.

I agree with you 100%, yet we all had the same issues to deal with. No one had the use of squad deploy or beacons and to hear people complain about not having that worked both ways. I wish squad deploy and beacons had been working but once we were told beacons would not work, we made a game plan based off of that information (Liberators certing Ejection seat, etc). When we were told 60 minutes prior to the match that beacons would in fact work, I voted to not use them based on our new plan that we put in place. To revert to an old plan with less than an hours notice wasn't something I was at all interested in doing.

We came up with a plan and it worked based on the current rule set and the map. Our plan just worked out better than your plan, that's all. I don't think any less of MERC/TxR for losing a silly scrim, we just happen to have won that night.

Elaborate plans will always fail and the K.I.S.S. principle will always be the best option. That was our super secret plan, "Keep It Simple Stupid". As I stated before, it was literally, "Kill SNAFU first, Kill NAPOOPAN second, kill MAGNIFISCENT third, then focus fire everyone else. Be very very aggressive at the start. Be smart, listen to Nate, otherwise don't speak. Listen for the Sunderer strike calls...spawn points win matches, DO NOT let the enemy spawn, force resource drain, whatever it takes, DO NOT let a Sunderer live."

I don't believe that having beacons or squad deploy would have had any different effect on the outcome of the match, but that's just coming from the confidence level in my guys.

What we know after this match:

Resources need to be replenished at 1/2 time. Absolutely no reason to punish a team in round 2 for having a bad round 1.
All resource gain should be MUCH higher so people aren't stranded so early on

Sardus · 2013-09-30, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Dreadnaut

I agree with you 100%, yet we all had the same issues to deal with. No one had the use of squad deploy or beacons and to hear people complain about not having that worked both ways. I wish squad deploy and beacons had been working but once we were told beacons would not work, we made a game plan based off of that information (Liberators certing Ejection seat, etc). When we were told 60 minutes prior to the match that beacons would in fact work, I voted to not use them based on our new plan that we put in place. To revert to an old plan with less than an hours notice wasn't something I was at all interested in doing.

We came up with a plan and it worked based on the current rule set and the map. Our plan just worked out better than your plan, that's all. I don't think any less of MERC/TxR for losing a silly scrim, we just happen to have won that night.

Elaborate plans will always fail and the K.I.S.S. principle will always be the best option. That was our super secret plan, "Keep It Simple Stupid". As I stated before, it was literally, "Kill SNAFU first, Kill NAPOOPAN second, kill MAGNIFISCENT third, then focus fire everyone else. Be very very aggressive at the start. Be smart, listen to Nate, otherwise don't speak. Listen for the Sunderer strike calls...spawn points win matches, DO NOT let the enemy spawn, force resource drain, whatever it takes, DO NOT let a Sunderer live."

I don't believe that having beacons or squad deploy would have had any different effect on the outcome of the match, but that's just coming from the confidence level in my guys.

What we know after this match:

Resources need to be replenished at 1/2 time. Absolutely no reason to punish a team in round 2 for having a bad round 1.
All resource gain should be MUCH higher so people aren't stranded so early on

Yeah, I'd imagine the liberator with Ejection seat to be a very valid tactic.

Galaxies will not be as useful in nexus. They are too easy to hit and to spot. And if you lose one, you're 12 guys down. If you lose one lib, you're only 2 or 3 down.

Heck, I don't even think sunderers are very useful. Once beacons and squad deploy are working, that'll be the most important way to get people back into the fight, and that is ONLY when you're desperate, as medics and engineers will be incredibly important for the attackers. Relying on a sunderer can be a very easy way to get removed. Sticking together with medics, is what I recommend.

If you rush with mossies, you're even harder to kill, but coordinating people to drop properly with just mossies is not easy.

I hope they put in closer hackable spawn points near the major objectives. I haven't looked too closely at Nexus... are their camps/towers near the enemy bases?

Until then, strategy is going to rely on getting to the target with as many people as possible, and keeping them alive without the use of a hard spawn. Not easy for an attacker to do. Relying on a hard spawn is a poor choice, namely because it can be easily killed.. and if you don't have the tenacity to hold a base without the use of a hardspawn, the defenders are probably good enough/strong enough to take it back anyways.