NA Tank Ops

[RazY70]

When I look at the scores I can see you still played one map of conquest and then two maps of Tank Superiority.
You must admit though that you were pretty superior on Rush last week, maybe that's also one reason why the KART HC chosed to play something else, just to see how the resistance is.
Tank Superiority is actually quite a good way to measure how the other teams armor really is.

I don't have a problem with Conquest (and we lost those matches as well this week). I have a problem with Tank Superiority.
Also, I don't really care how the other team's armor really is. I care about enjoying the game, and Tank Superiority has about Zero enjoyment potential for me. Therefore I'm more than happy to make room on the server for the others who enjoy it.

[LCourage]

Sorry for my original rant. It was not very professional. Real life has been stressful for me. ATM, I'm essentially working 1 full time job, 2 part time jobs and have 3 daughters at home that constantly require my attention. So my battlefield time is limited to 2-3 hours a week. I have always been a hardcore infantry player since BF1942. So it's fustrating when my only real gaming time for the week is spent in a tank. It's nobodys fault, it's just the way things are. I'm not talking about numbers, outcomes or maps with 2-3 tanks. I'm purely speaking about spending 2 hours, 4 rounds and 2 maps doing tank superiority during a 2.5 hour BO. I wasn't aware we were playing Tank Superiority during BOs. IMHO, Tank Superiority is the armor version of Close Quarters. So on a side note I'm not sure why we play Tank Superiority for the armor loving guys and avoid Close Quarters for the infantry players, like myself. If anything constructive can be taken away from this, it may be a good move for our community to specificy that BOs will not be infantry only. I don't believe I'm the only one confused by this.
Thanks to everyone that FC'ed and participated yesterday in the BO regardless of the play style. I hope attendance continues to grow for both BOs.

[KILLERCANKILL]

im in the armor division and i can't say i enjoyed the EUBO.
with less then 20 people per team and no air, its all about the tanks.
3 tanks per team, 3/4 of the team is allocated to support the tanks. for 3 hours. great.
i prefer the "infantry only" black ops we had last campaign.

We had tank superiority last campaign as well.

I actually liked it, it’s a nice change from the usual conquest formula. Maybe we can start playing more capture the flag in ops, that would be fun.

[KILLERCANKILL]

I know this probably isn't going to change during this campaign, but just for the record I believe Tank Superiority is simply a horrible game mode for GC.

This has nothing to do with the results of this week's BO. I disliked the mode in the previous campaign as well. While there is indeed no I in Team, I don't really see where the team elements come into play in this mode. It's basically TDM with an "everybody gather around here" thingy, played on a large map.

I realize some armor guys might like this mode, but as an inf guy I don't enjoy what it has to offer. Speaking for myself only, I do not intend to take part in future TS matches.

There is a lot of strategy in tank superiority, simple dumping tanks on the flag zone and playing it like TDM never works. Tank’s have to co-ordinated and need to push up in groups. If you look at the mode in this way then even conquest has no strategy, all you need is walk into a flag and play it like tdm. Infantry guys like conquest, armor guys like TS. We play all conquest on battleday’s, 2 rounds of a different mode in blackops should not be a problem to anyone.

[RazY70]

There is a lot of strategy in tank superiority, simple dumping tanks on the flag zone and playing it like TDM never works. Tank’s have to co-ordinated and need to push up in groups. If you look at the mode in this way then even conquest has no strategy, all you need is walk into a flag and play it like tdm. Infantry guys like conquest, armor guys like TS. We play all conquest on battleday’s, 2 rounds of a different mode in blackops should not be a problem to anyone.

I'm looking at it this way from an organized match and team-play perspective. We played a few rounds of TDM in one of the BFI's and it had some level of strategy as well, yet it failed miserably and is no longer even considered an option.

I already acknowledged that some of the armor guys might like this mode, just as I'm sure some of the air guys might like Air Superiority. However, the game mechanics of this mode leave some of the other players pretty frustrated.

You're saying a couple of rounds of this mode shouldn't be a problem to anyone, yet as someone who played it during this campaign and the previous one I can safely say that it is a problem - at least for me. It's fine that some find it enjoyable, and they can continue playing it, just minus moi.

[wizekraker]

Razy I dont think good idea just not showing up for Blackops just because you dislike it. If everyone were to do this, then we wouldn't have much of turn out for BO. I'm not big fan of rush but I still play it.

[RazY70]

Razy I dont think good idea just not showing up for Blackops just because you dislike it. If everyone were to do this, then we wouldn't have much of turn out for BO. I'm not big fan of rush but I still play it.

Oh, I'll be showing up for BO's for sure. It's just the TS rounds I intend not to take part in.

[Róka]

I see Razy's point, and personally I don't really care wherever this thread is going as an outcome, but I have to agree that obviously we can't have TS only BOs after we state that they are infantry-based. I personally enjoy small conquest maps and rush modes because they are a bit more intense, but I manage to have fun in TS as well. I'm fine with TS, but, like a lot of people have suggested, we might as well add CQ for infantry only and then some Air Superiority for the air guys.

[Darkrider312]

Didn't we try Close Quarters last campaign? I thought that people didn't really receive it well. I heard it was too hectic and random spawns doesn't really help. I personally like CQ because it helps me practice my infantry skills, but I do find it difficult how to implement tactics and strategy properly. I bet other people have ideas about it though.

Air Superiority would be interesting, though I'm not sure how well it could work out, considering each side gets a maximum of 12 jets, for a total of 24 jets in the air at one time. And unlike Tank Superiority, it's air only, so there is no role for extra players, unless there is a rotation of some sort. I suck so much flying a jet that I would have to sit out if we implemented Air Superiority.

[StarfisherEcho]

CQ is too close quarters

Unless you're a seasoned gaming god, getting together effective pushes and whatnot takes some time. CQ takes that time away, so whenever we played it, people grumbled about how they couldn't do anything but spawn and die.

Tank Superiority OTOH has a lot of strategy, in fact I'd say that it has a very high requirement for team work, especially from your infantry dudes. The mode takes away your spawn system and forces you to protect your bacon. The maps are large so you can take some time to plan, and you have the room to do so. Without high levels of teamwork, it all falls apart.

Problem is that people tend to look at it and go "oh well tank superiority EVERYONE ON THE FLAG" and then it devolves.

I can see where LCourage is coming from, though. Playing nothing BUT Tank Sup can be a drag. I wouldn't be opposed to a rule that states that you can only play one of each kind of thing per regional BO. So instead of playing 3 Rushes in a row, or 3 TSes in a row, you would have to play a Rush, CQ, TS, CTF, etc. This would alleviate the main complaint (all we play is TS!) and could also help level out the feeling of getting your face kicked in when the other army is really rolling on Rush or whatever and you aren't. A change of pace would maybe give the loser some more time to find their feet.

[Róka]

protect your bacon.


I can see where LCourage is coming from, though. Playing nothing BUT Tank Sup can be a drag. I wouldn't be opposed to a rule that states that you can only play one of each kind of thing per regional BO. So instead of playing 3 Rushes in a row, or 3 TSes in a row, you would have to play a Rush, CQ, TS, CTF, etc. This would alleviate the main complaint (all we play is TS!) and could also help level out the feeling of getting your face kicked in when the other army is really rolling on Rush or whatever and you aren't. A change of pace would maybe give the loser some more time to find their feet.

I considered this, but I really don't think we should take that away from attacking armies. The attacking army should have the right to choose whatever game-mode/map they want to attack, and if they steamroll it because that's their strong suit, that's fine by me.

[RazY70]

Requires high level of team work and allows high level of team work are two separate things, which is precisely the main problem here as far as infantry goes. This mode wasn't intended for it at all.

[StarfisherEcho]

It absolutely allows for teamwork. You have Teamspeak, you even get the luxury of squadmates showing up on your HUD. You get a magical spawn beacon. Those are all the tools you need. After that, it's up to your squad to coordinate their asses off and make it happen. TS is a huge challenge, but it's not chaos unless you let it be. It just takes a very different style of play than normal Conquest.

[RazY70]

This all sounds very nice in theory, but the practice suggests otherwise. Plus, if that's the case why aren't we playing regular TDM? You still have all those assets at your disposal, and if you want magic I give you random spawn.

[Rekaito]

Okay this is probably slightly biased since black ops was just yesterday and everything i did was TS. Personally i simply don't find TS that fun. Half of the time is simply spent getting to the front line, even if you get a ride. And yes, if you play smart you live longer, but still a significant amount of time is spent just running, which i don't find very fun. I understand some people like TS, but it sounds like it's preventing a least a few people from having fun, which is the point of GC right?

It was also mentioned that TS requires strategy and something other than just rushing the single flag, which i totally agree with. But i would also argue that this is true for close quarters too, there are certain flags that are more important and certain areas that are tactically important that can easily be held/taken with teamwork even with the more random spawning. Two people using good teamwork can easily dominate a CQ round, at least on a PUB server. So i think that just because something requires/involves strategy and tactics doesn't mean it's a good fit for GC.

Anyways, i'm hoping i don't sounds mad or anything cause i'm not. These are just my thoughts. You KART guys played very well yesterday.