Rush Rules

[elchino7]

Is there any regarding:

-Attackers not attacking (staying on base on the first set of mcoms)?
-Defenders staying on the Mcom zone once it has been blow up?

My opinion:
1- At least half of the attackers should be pushing and be on a zone not in the outofbounds or at least at shot from the defenders.
2- That´s the work of the attackers to clear a zone whenever both mcoms are blown up. Theres no such thing for me as base rape on rush*
(except for AIR vehicles when trying to steal the frogfoot/thunderbolt or any other vehicle which needs to cross a zone of out of bounds)

[Necromancer]

i think there is indeed a problem with the attackers not attacking in case the attacker on the map is on the defense this week.
the attacker can stay at spawn, inside the safe zone, and burn the BO day out for the BO attacker.

this can't be solved with BO defender attacking first, since he can simply not attack, thus never coming to the next round.
guess the TAs must rule the attacker must move outside the safe zone.

[StarfisherEcho]

The attacker on a BO will always want to attack and end rounds. The defender will always want to delay. The question is in how you set it up so that the defender can delay reasonably and in a way that can be countered.

If the TA's detect that a defender is just stalling (sort of like stealing a vehicle and then parking it in your uncap), they can sanction the team delaying at their discretion. If a defender just never spawns in or sits in their spawn the entire time, they will be sanctioned by the TAs.

[Cheesy]

There's an incredibly simple solution to the attackers-not-attacking problem. Just make the risk defenders play attacker side first. They won't stop in their base because they don't know how many mcoms the other side will get. Problem solved.

[Necromancer]

That doest help.
Attackers go first, they blow 2 mcoms.
It doest matter what they do, its their attack.

Now defenders go.
They will have to destro two or more to win the map.
Or stay at spawn, in the protected area, and with no time limit, burn the entire day

[Gwynzer]

These are all theoretical. GC has a "fairplay" rule, although there is no specific mention regarding rush "camping" within the fairplay rules, it is at TAs discretion as to if an army is in violation of fairplay at any point.

Yes, this gives the option for the attacking army to "play slow", but in my eyes, that's a valid enough tactic. It can also be indistinguishable from "playing careful". So long as an army isn't blatantly camping in their base, all is good.

[styphon]

These are all theoretical. GC has a "fairplay" rule, although there is no specific mention regarding rush "camping" within the fairplay rules, it is at TAs discretion as to if an army is in violation of fairplay at any point.

Yes, this gives the option for the attacking army to "play slow", but in my eyes, that's a valid enough tactic. It can also be indistinguishable from "playing careful". So long as an army isn't blatantly camping in their base, all is good.

GC does not have a "fairplay" rule. It has a set of fair play rules. These are specific and the TAs will only enforce those. Anything not laid out in wiki is not enforced by the TAs. We are discussing this and possible options on what to do.