Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

Seeing the opposing player grab camo across the map, Icy should have immediately moved forward towards his 3 teammates (creating a barrier between them and the opposing camo player) and helped them in there 3v3 engagement, turning it into a 4v3 scenario.  This would force the camo player to reveal his position if he wished to provide immediate impact on the now 4v3 fight, thus reducing the effectiveness of the camo that he just picked up.. 


I already said that I moved towards my teammates to help them in a 4v3, and I didn’t even mention whether he ended up hurting my team in the fight. My claim was never about the match, but about the principle of predictability and the effects of using a design or item that isn’t at least like, idk, 33% predictable.

 

4 hours ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

Instead, Icy chose to stay isolated and allowed enough time, by staying in one position (camping/stagnation), for the camo player to travel ALL the way across the map, kill him...


Yeah, I stayed in generally the same area which was above my team and off dominant LOS from the enemy team grouped in the middle of the map. Maybe I didn’t move all the way over to my team, maybe I stayed partially isolated from the enemy LOS in order to gain the greatest advantage possible in terms of angles. I did create a 4v3 , it was 4sheilded v 3unsheilded taking BR, nades and then turret fire from a second angle, and I’m pretty sure my team won out at the end of the encounter despite me getting back smacked. Come on, 3v1 against a guy with no nades and fading camo out in the open? Easy.

 

4 hours ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

and sandwich ICY's poor teammates between the camo player and his 3 teammates.  


Not really, more like a triangle, but by then blue was down shields and a player. See above, 3v2.5 -> 3v1.

 

4 hours ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

One of the biggest advantages of Camo is the ability to have the element of surprise in  a 1v1 scenario, thus increasing your chances of winning the duel by getting first shot/being in an unpredictable position. It actually makes zero sense for a player with camo to engage multiple enemies at once, so unsure of why anyone that is isolated would expect a camo player to attack a cluster of players vs them as an isolated player. That approach is more suited towards someone that just picked up an over shield or damage boost..... Isnt this type of stuff Halo 101 basics?

 

 

Uh, idk, maybe because it would be absurd to expect someone to be able to cross the entire open space of a map the size of Standoff  without camo wearing off, not to mention the fact that a surprise addition to a 3v3 can net 3 kills if played right instead of a less certain  net result focusing only on the guy that is ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE MAP using a turret that shreds shields and health for a good 10 seconds before he got there. Makes some sense to me, because the net result of the encounter was still negative for camo team.

 

A 1v(n), where (n) is definitely the set of numbers between [1 and 4] and the 1 has camo and fresh rockets is absolutely in camo’s favor. Now, it’s not like the camo guy couldn’t have picked up rockets at Satellite rocks spawn on his way over, so who even knows whether a 4v3 would be the correct play when camo is taken? My teammates all could have been wiped by a single rocket at one point, had that happened. As for whether there is ANY correct play on a map as open as Standoff in a white reticle cross map BR duel other than to shift focus onto the closer group of enemies who I can actually deal damage to, as I already stated I did in this instance, it’s clear as day my choice was reasonable and his ended up with net negative results.

 

4 hours ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

Interestingly enough, the enemy picking up camo should have sped up the pace of the battle If @icyhotspartin knew the correct play to make in that situation.

 

I never made a claim about the pace of the particular match I was in being affected by the inclusion or use of camo. 

 

But, because EVERY ENCOUNTER COUNTS in a game of social slayer I guess I’ll hold all expectations next time and just hide in the base waiting for camo to run out before I go back outside, or maybe hide behind the crates on the furthest edge of the map and let my teammates get shredded 4v3 by camo taking a sideways angle, or maybe drive cross map in the mongoose so that I am always in white reticle relative to the radius where the camo guy might be, or..... oh.. I guess the pace would have slowed down if the encounter between just me and the camo guy had mattered at all to me.

 

4 hours ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

 If anything, this post/situation described is STUNNING testimony as to why players that have very little game sense/knowledge should NOT use there own anecdotal experiences to evaluate the validity and fairness of in game elements such as Camo. Git gud and stop blaming powerups for your suboptimal play. 

 

Who’s blaming camo for suboptimal play, or challenging the validity of camo in principle? H3 Camo is demonstrably unpredictable, as my anecdote illustrates, and punishingly so in

a/ the absence of geometry which would, again, only partially mitigate predictability concerns and

b/ smaller player counts, especially on maps where there is more geometry than Standoff exterior. Any camo with the same player modifiers would be the same. As you said, it gives the camo guy an advantage in 1v1 encounters. Those 1v1 encounters could happen ANYWHERE. That’s an objective and probabilistically insurmountable advantage in terms of dictating encounters regardless of map geometry. Doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t ever be on a map - your personal preference is still valid, assuming you have a preference for H3 camo. But validity alone, a true proposition does not make.


Re. game sense, what, are you going to bring up my Waypoint stats now? Go ahead and post them, I can already tell you I have no thumbs and wouldn’t crack the top 100 in an amateur regional bracket because I play for fun, not money or bragging rights or rank. Do my casual MM numbers in MCC H3 invalidate my rational capacity? 

 

A better question: Why would I want to push the space between the enemy team and Satellite camo spawn in no man’s land in front of a more than likely approaching camo guy, as you suggested the right play is? Like... what?
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

listened to this at work, in this video luis talks about the role extracurricular entertainment/ creative works play in the life of a christian, he generally uses the word "culture" to capture various forms of hobbies both as a consumer and creator but mainly he is viewing this as a lover of literature, so there might be some departure somewhere when we translate and try to apply this philosophy to game design/ level design

 

 

i liked his bit i think around 30 min where he explains to find the redeaming qualities you have to think lowely and simply, these extracirilular indulgences can be beneficial to ourselves and others, but in small ways. My take away is: don't have self imposed illusions of granduer thinking you are doing Gods work with your creations when the greatest work has already been done, we need not add more to it. our mentality should be in gift giving these experiences to others, as much as it is receiving the gifts and enjoying what good they have to offer us in our walk

1260918535_Forgemapsthumbnail.thumb.png.a0054255c7c5aba3a52c3cef60b4b815.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2021 at 5:34 AM, icyhotspartin said:


I already said that I moved towards my teammates to help them in a 4v3, and I didn’t even mention whether he ended up hurting my team in the fight. My claim was never about the match, but about the principle of predictability and the effects of using a design or item that isn’t at least like, idk, 33% predictable.

 


Yeah, I stayed in generally the same area which was above my team and off dominant LOS from the enemy team grouped in the middle of the map. Maybe I didn’t move all the way over to my team, maybe I stayed partially isolated from the enemy LOS in order to gain the greatest advantage possible in terms of angles. I did create a 4v3 , it was 4sheilded v 3unsheilded taking BR, nades and then turret fire from a second angle, and I’m pretty sure my team won out at the end of the encounter despite me getting back smacked. Come on, 3v1 against a guy with no nades and fading camo out in the open? Easy.

 


Not really, more like a triangle, but by then blue was down shields and a player. See above, 3v2.5 -> 3v1.

 

 

Uh, idk, maybe because it would be absurd to expect someone to be able to cross the entire open space of a map the size of Standoff  without camo wearing off, not to mention the fact that a surprise addition to a 3v3 can net 3 kills if played right instead of a less certain  net result focusing only on the guy that is ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE MAP using a turret that shreds shields and health for a good 10 seconds before he got there. Makes some sense to me, because the net result of the encounter was still negative for camo team.

 

A 1v(n), where (n) is definitely the set of numbers between [1 and 4] and the 1 has camo and fresh rockets is absolutely in camo’s favor. Now, it’s not like the camo guy couldn’t have picked up rockets at Satellite rocks spawn on his way over, so who even knows whether a 4v3 would be the correct play when camo is taken? My teammates all could have been wiped by a single rocket at one point, had that happened. As for whether there is ANY correct play on a map as open as Standoff in a white reticle cross map BR duel other than to shift focus onto the closer group of enemies who I can actually deal damage to, as I already stated I did in this instance, it’s clear as day my choice was reasonable and his ended up with net negative results.

 

 

I never made a claim about the pace of the particular match I was in being affected by the inclusion or use of camo. 

 

But, because EVERY ENCOUNTER COUNTS in a game of social slayer I guess I’ll hold all expectations next time and just hide in the base waiting for camo to run out before I go back outside, or maybe hide behind the crates on the furthest edge of the map and let my teammates get shredded 4v3 by camo taking a sideways angle, or maybe drive cross map in the mongoose so that I am always in white reticle relative to the radius where the camo guy might be, or..... oh.. I guess the pace would have slowed down if the encounter between just me and the camo guy had mattered at all to me.

 

 

Who’s blaming camo for suboptimal play, or challenging the validity of camo in principle? H3 Camo is demonstrably unpredictable, as my anecdote illustrates, and punishingly so in

a/ the absence of geometry which would, again, only partially mitigate predictability concerns and

b/ smaller player counts, especially on maps where there is more geometry than Standoff exterior. Any camo with the same player modifiers would be the same. As you said, it gives the camo guy an advantage in 1v1 encounters. Those 1v1 encounters could happen ANYWHERE. That’s an objective and probabilistically insurmountable advantage in terms of dictating encounters regardless of map geometry. Doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t ever be on a map - your personal preference is still valid, assuming you have a preference for H3 camo. But validity alone, a true proposition does not make.


Re. game sense, what, are you going to bring up my Waypoint stats now? Go ahead and post them, I can already tell you I have no thumbs and wouldn’t crack the top 100 in an amateur regional bracket because I play for fun, not money or bragging rights or rank. Do my casual MM numbers in MCC H3 invalidate my rational capacity? 

 

A better question: Why would I want to push the space between the enemy team and Satellite camo spawn in no man’s land in front of a more than likely approaching camo guy, as you suggested the right play is? Like... what?
 

 

Next time you post stunning evidence I suggest you make sure your visual representations actually line up with what happened in game. If they don't, don't bother posting them at all.   It's very easy to misconstrue where you actually got assassinated as the location of the red x in your visual digram is much different then where you said you were when you died in your text explainations. These things matter when evaluating situations in game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

Next time you post stunning evidence I suggest you make sure your visual representations actually line up with what happened in game. If they don't, don't bother posting them at all.   It's very easy to misconstrue where you actually got assassinated as the location of the red x in your visual digram is much different then where you said you were when you died in your text explainations. These things matter when evaluating situations in game. 

 

They absolutely do, so here's a revised diagram:

 

image.png.a19ae3f8eaf763f182cde995b8f1bd9b.png

 

Yellow arrows indicate possible routes the camo guy could have taken,  the longest one shows where he ended up in the particular case I referenced. Red and Blue blobs indicate activity, with the respective arrows indicating dominant movement. Red circle is my spawn, and blue circle is where I saw and briefly engaged camo guy before he picked it up. My path is the orange line, I stopped off and grabbed the brute shot in case I caught camo guy movement, but I didn't and he smacked me on the turret. 

 

Yesterday I played 4v4 on Standoff again, this time to prove a point I grabbed tree camo and daisychained it with satellite camo ignoring the action. I was able to circle the entire map along the perimeter completely camo'd. Looked something like this, where the blobs are representative of team positions when I engaged near the end of my second camo:

 

image.png.eca6d321d5b97f7a10d28ea47172267e.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2021 at 7:52 PM, icyhotspartin said:

 

They absolutely do, so here's a revised diagram:

 

image.png.a19ae3f8eaf763f182cde995b8f1bd9b.png

 

Yellow arrows indicate possible routes the camo guy could have taken,  the longest one shows where he ended up in the particular case I referenced. Red and Blue blobs indicate activity, with the respective arrows indicating dominant movement. Red circle is my spawn, and blue circle is where I saw and briefly engaged camo guy before he picked it up. My path is the orange line, I stopped off and grabbed the brute shot in case I caught camo guy movement, but I didn't and he smacked me on the turret. 

 

Yesterday I played 4v4 on Standoff again, this time to prove a point I grabbed tree camo and daisychained it with satellite camo ignoring the action. I was able to circle the entire map along the perimeter completely camo'd. Looked something like this, where the blobs are representative of team positions when I engaged near the end of my second camo:

 

image.png.eca6d321d5b97f7a10d28ea47172267e.png

 

 

Camo be like:

 

Honestly, its just seems like smart and logical plays on camo guy's part, he pushed the side that his team were strongest in order to slingshot him round the map to the next valid player to kill (which in this case was also the only enemy as far as we know who had identified his activity). Realistically, he made a b-Line for you choosing the most direct and stealthy option because he was already aware that you were aware of his situation and with the rest of your team pre-occupied and you now semi-distracted by giving them a hand, he played his cards right because he was forced into the power play. That is a sound strat for using a power ability and imo, the most efficient way to use camo to elevate gameplay. Had you not engaged immediately on what was a pot luck encounter, he might not have known your existence in that location or at the very least, that you knew he was running camo. But as it stands, you were the biggest threat and he was forced to take action on you. Thats where you would've had the advantage as you coulda waited him out, letting him go for someone else then spring up behind him and do to him what he did to you. We've talked about this from your perspective, but it's equally valid to discuss why a power player would kill you like he did. Is camo op, maybe? But it doesn't hinder gameplay. Its an interesting addition that shifts player perspective and engagement in a far more interesting way that power weapons or arguably os imo. Purely's right, its just a case of understanding the counter-play measures.

Edited by FatkidForger

FatKid LD > Core LD

 

He hasn't got any faults, but maybe he's not perfect. But he didn't do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FatkidForger said:

Camo be like:

 

Honestly, its just seems like smart and logical plays on camo guy's part, he pushed the side that his team were strongest in order to slingshot him round the map to the next valid player to kill (which in this case was also the only enemy as far as we know who had identified his activity). Realistically, he made a b-Line for you choosing the most direct and stealthy option because he was already aware that you were aware of his situation and with the rest of your team pre-occupied and you now semi-distracted by giving them a hand, he played his cards right because he was forced into the power play. That is a sound strat for using a power ability and imo, the most efficient way to use camo to elevate gameplay. Had you not engaged immediately on what was a pot luck encounter, he might not have known your existence in that location or at the very least, that you knew he was running camo. But as it stands, you were the biggest threat and he was forced to take action on you. Thats where you would've had the advantage as you coulda waited him out, letting him go for someone else then spring up behind him and do to him what he did to you. We've talked about this from your perspective, but it's equally valid to discuss why a power player would kill you like he did. Is camo op, maybe? But it doesn't hinder gameplay. Its an interesting addition that shifts player perspective and engagement in a far more interesting way that power weapons or arguably os imo. Purely's right, its just a case of understanding the counter-play measures.

I'm gonna go make a velociraptor camo map that preys on headless chickens

Edited by FatkidForger

FatKid LD > Core LD

 

He hasn't got any faults, but maybe he's not perfect. But he didn't do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2021 at 1:50 PM, Soldat Du Christ said:

im pretty sure the act man had alot to do with infinites direction, they are doing everything he asked for, btb sounds exactly like what he asked for in one of his videos

I think they listen to people a lot so long as it complies with their immediate direction but I doubt he has any agency outside of being a platform with the loudest voice.

FatKid LD > Core LD

 

He hasn't got any faults, but maybe he's not perfect. But he didn't do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FatkidForger said:

Camo be like:

 

Honestly, its just seems like smart and logical plays on camo guy's part, he pushed the side that his team were strongest in order to slingshot him round the map to the next valid player to kill (which in this case was also the only enemy as far as we know who had identified his activity). Realistically, he made a b-Line for you choosing the most direct and stealthy option because he was already aware that you were aware of his situation and with the rest of your team pre-occupied and you now semi-distracted by giving them a hand, he played his cards right because he was forced into the power play. That is a sound strat for using a power ability and imo, the most efficient way to use camo to elevate gameplay. Had you not engaged immediately on what was a pot luck encounter, he might not have known your existence in that location or at the very least, that you knew he was running camo. Thats where you would've had the advantage as you coulda waited him out, letting him go for someone else then spring up behind him and do to him what he did to you. We've talked about this from your perspective, but it's equally valid to discuss why a power player would kill you like he did. Is camo op, maybe? But it doesn't hinder gameplay. Its an interesting addition that shifts player perspective and engagement in a far more interesting way that power weapons or arguably os imo. Purely's right, its just a case of understanding the counter-play measures.


Yeah, it was smart and logical, sound strat given the nature of the powerup. But there were multiple other options available to him that were also smart and logical and sound strats, none of which I could reasonably eliminate given the nature of the match. 
 

Now I didn’t think it possible that he could move that far while still fully

camo’d, so definitely dog on me for not playing enough Standoff in the last 13 years. 
 

Thing is, I never said him making a beeline for me wasn’t valid. It’s totally a valid strategy, because the item is included in the map and gametype. I only used the example to illustrate just how far someone can travel while camo’d on an essentially flat, open map, something I took to the extreme in the next example with the daisychain. In a different match, on a different map, with a different player count, the possibilities are pretty much the same. The point of the illustration being that there is no reliable and readable  predictions of a camo player in H3 without the elimination or severe limitation of his choices, which would defeat the purpose of the powerup and create a time sink where nothing happens, the intended wild card repositioning would be impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, icyhotspartin said:


Yeah, it was smart and logical, sound strat given the nature of the powerup. But there were multiple other options available to him that were also smart and logical and sound strats, none of which I could reasonably eliminate given the nature of the match. 
 

Now I didn’t think it possible that he could move that far while still fully

camo’d, so definitely dog on me for not playing enough Standoff in the last 13 years. 
 

Thing is, I never said him making a beeline for me wasn’t valid. It’s totally a valid strategy, because the item is included in the map and gametype. I only used the example to illustrate just how far someone can travel while camo’d on an essentially flat, open map, something I took to the extreme in the next example with the daisychain. In a different match, on a different map, with a different player count, the possibilities are pretty much the same. The point of the illustration being that there is no reliable and readable  predictions of a camo player in H3 without the elimination or severe limitation of his choices, which would defeat the purpose of the powerup and create a time sink where nothing happens, the intended wild card repositioning would be impossible.

It's not dogging on anyone, just trying to figure out what the play coulda been seeing as it was brought up. I'm no comp kid, I wouldn't even be able to perform half the strats I observe and predict others to work with. I agree and honestly two camos is pretty silly imo just for the idea of equal starts. Though, this also relies on one team not having the ability to hold down at least one side of the map and fend off one camo guy. I don't know if in any other situation I'd say camo time was too lengthy because while yes in this match it'd be perfect for just making a quick cross however, taking out one dood with combat options before loosing camo isn't a stretch to me. Camo might be op with opacity levels but its function and length are fine imo. So is the problem with the camo itself or the use of sandbox given ld in question? I personally think theres too much going on with that map but I also think bungie wanted ppl to mess around and have fun on it too. Is there two camos in comp modes on that map?

FatKid LD > Core LD

 

He hasn't got any faults, but maybe he's not perfect. But he didn't do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FatkidForger said:

It's not dogging on anyone, just trying to figure out what the play coulda been seeing as it was brought up. I'm no comp kid, I wouldn't even be able to perform half the strats I observe and predict others to work with. I agree and honestly two camos is pretty silly imo just for the idea of equal starts. Though, this also relies on one team not having the ability to hold down at least one side of the map and fend off one camo guy. I don't know if in any other situation I'd say camo time was too lengthy because while yes in this match it'd be perfect for just making a quick cross however, taking out one dood with combat options before loosing camo isn't a stretch to me. Camo might be op with opacity levels but its function and length are fine imo. So is the problem with the camo itself or the use of sandbox given ld in question? I personally think theres too much going on with that map but I also think bungie wanted ppl to mess around and have fun on it too. Is there two camos in comp modes on that map?


I don’t think Standoff is in competitive playlists, precisely because Bungie wanted people to have fun on an open space, blood gulch style. But there are two camos for social 4v4 and BTB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright so back in the day when you would get 4v4 standoff in ranked at 45 and up the strategy for the map was super simple. One player gets rockets and camo, 1 player gets power drain and contests laser while the other two get in the hog and poke at the middle until the weapons are secured. These two players can also just help contest the laser and help kite the enemy player who grabbed rockets and camo. The rocket camo guys job is first to contest a warthog if there is one and then push for spawn kills. The power drain players job is to either fuck the hog or fuck a really hard push from the other team contesting the laser. The other two will typically end up in the hog and one of them will just hold onto the laser to prevent it from respawning. The ultimate goal of this is to get control of the enemy teams base and snowball them until the games over and if they counter your shit and you have the lead then you just poke from your bases rocks until rockets and camo are back up and then something similar to what happens at the beginning of the game happens again. I don't think I ever played a game that didn't get to 50 on the map. The map would have been really annoying and would have never gotten to the kill limit without the double rocket and double camo in my opinion. Does that make it good competitive design, probably not because it features one of the most brutal vehicle snowballs to ever exist in halo. Which is a big reason why there is a camo for both teams on the map and why you literally can spawn right on top of it.

 

Now can we stop talking about camo. It is obvious why somebody wouldn't like any power item in a game no matter what said item is. Every power item in every game has it's own set of haters.

 

Edited by purely fat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what if you could burn camo by shooting them before they grab it like OS  custom powerup?! 🤢🤮

 

keep the camo talk going guys this is nextleveldiscussion 

Edited by JB_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I would prefer if you were fully cloaked if you were moving, and partially visible while not moving. A similar design can also be applied to the OS; layer stays on while moving, slivers away when not moving.

 

A simple way to enforce aggressive play, which also encourages smarter use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, S0UL FLAME said:

Personally, I would prefer if you were fully cloaked if you were moving, and partially visible while not moving. A similar design can also be applied to the OS; layer stays on while moving, slivers away when not moving.

 

A simple way to enforce aggressive play, which also encourages smarter use.

I think that takes the stealth attribute out of the players hands and gives them little agency outside of "keep moving". People might not even use that as an aggressive tactic, more of an easy out of combat for constant toying. I get the sentiment but I'll always maintain my 80-90% constant camo bias.

FatKid LD > Core LD

 

He hasn't got any faults, but maybe he's not perfect. But he didn't do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@icyhotspartin

I'm still just over here trying to figure out why, after watching someone pick up camo from across the map that also knows you saw them pick it up, why out of all the things you could do would you choose to sit on a stationary turret... I get it's just social but still.... That's just odd to me. Like you said, I guess you didn't expect them to walk across the map with it? ( Making it to the opossing turret from camo spawn isn't even that far tho, not nearly as far as where you showed the original red x)

 

You gotta play to your outs, play to camos weaknesses not into it's strengths. Fight fire with fire (unpredictably with unpredictably),  stay in motion, make yourself a difficult target to reach, don't put yourself on a platter. Moving up to a closer position  that is a completely stationary position is probably one of the worst things you could have done in that scenario. 

 

Also, what are you trying to prove by saying you were able to circle the map and grab the opposing teams camo? 

 

That you left your team in 3v4 scenario for an extended period of time while accomplishing what exactly? Resources are only good if your gaining a net positive out of there use or denial. Denying an opponent a resource can sometimes equal a positive gain sure, but using your own resource soley to deny them of there's while leaving your team down an active player... yeah im not sure thats a net positive... Maybe neutral at best. 

 

Also,  both camos should spawn at the same time on that map if teams are playing properly,  so a  single player grabbing both camos or a team grabbing both camos shouldn't really happen unless one team is sufficiently outclassed or just doesn't care at all about tracking timers/pickups. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

@icyhotspartin

I'm still just over here trying to figure out why, after watching someone pick up camo from across the map that also knows you saw them pick it up, why out of all the things you could do would you choose to sit on a stationary turret... I get it's just social but still.... That's just odd to me. Like you said, I guess you didn't expect them to walk across the map with it? ( Making it to the opossing turret from camo spawn isn't even that far tho, not nearly as far as where you showed the original red x)

 

Have you considered the fact that I don't play social 4v4 to sweat, but instead to have a little fun and try some things out that I'd never do in a competitive game? Probably most people play the same way, except for the guys that setup on guardian S4, lift mid, tree 3, OS mid and spawnkill the 3-man team until they all quit. So that's why I grabbed the turret for a damage multiplier and angle in a 4v3. There weren't any hogs, powerdrain was already in use, and brute shot is basically useless at that range. And the red x wasn't supposed to show where I died, just that I died, which is on me - it's still a long way, which...

 

20 hours ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

Also, what are you trying to prove by saying you were able to circle the map and grab the opposing teams camo? 

 

That you left your team in 3v4 scenario for an extended period of time while accomplishing what exactly? Resources are only good if your gaining a net positive out of there use or denial. Denying an opponent a resource can sometimes equal a positive gain sure, but using your own resource soley to deny them of there's while leaving your team down an active player... yeah im not sure thats a net positive... Maybe neutral at best. 

 

Also,  both camos should spawn at the same time on that map if teams are playing properly,  so a  single player grabbing both camos or a team grabbing both camos shouldn't really happen unless one team is sufficiently outclassed or just doesn't care at all about tracking timers/pickups. 

 

...was the whole point of abandoning my team and running the perimeter of the map with camo. The whole point was to show just how far I could travel with camo, while undetected, in a design vacuum but while still under threat of being detected.  Again, I didn't care about abandoning my team, it was a social game with full teams. I even got to surprise one of the enemy team off spawn for a kill towards the top of satellite base before grabbing the second camo, but that was never the intent. Not my problem that the spawn system put their guys at a disadvantage relative to my position, allowing me to grab both if they both spawned at the same time. Probably not, because, again, its a social match, and the ambient IQ is in the 80s.

 

But even in ranked, if a team is outclassed as you say, a scenario in which a ranked match on Standoff does allow for one team to grab both camos, or daisychain them is clearly possible, because I was able to leave my 3 red teammates on the blue side of the map and blue guys didn't all spawn on red side, and my guys were STILL over there when I completed my circuit. But again, this was never about the competitive viability of or strategies on Standoff, just showing how someone with typical camo could be, without geometric handcuffs, be literally anywhere on a map at any time, including out in the open, camping a corner, etc.

 

@S0UL FLAME I like that idea about inverting camo's player characteristics, but even then someone could just move in a circle in a competitive match without motion trackers and effectively camp a corner, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, icyhotspartin said:

@S0UL FLAME I like that idea about inverting camo's player characteristics, but even then someone could just move in a circle in a competitive match without motion trackers and effectively camp a corner, right?

Someone could certainly try to stubbornly hold a corner, yes. However, due to them having to constantly move around and make noise (as camo doesn't mute someone's footsteps), said activity would provide even less successful endeavors than before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...