PVP are better for tactics

[mrbiggles 10]

Scenario 1

We are going to drop you off on a large sparsely populated island with no mission objectives to talk of where you will be working in co-op with heaps of other people who a) you dont know and b) dont know what they are supposed to be doing either.

People who are serious about simulated combat enjoy spending hours waiting for something to happen, and if you dont like it, we can transport you via a long boring chopper ride to the nearest BF2 theatre.

In our mature level Co-Op missions which dominate the servers (and rightly so, it keeps heathens away) you can expect immersive action for 1 minute out of every one hour playing time, which is a great way to learn tactics and strategy.

Scenario 2

You are put into an area where the enemy is seperated by less that 800m with 10 humans against 10 humans.

Because the action is so condensed, you are able to quickly learn what does and does not work and are able to make large changes in the score by working together using tactics and strategy.

Conclusion

Small PVP maps are a better environment for a beginner to learn how to play the game in a team environment.

Its a shame there arent any...... Went on last night and 20 out of the 20 servers I could play on were Co-Op.

Whenever there is a server that has PVP, it quickly gets crowded and is hard to join.

[hund 0]

I (as always) disagree a little bit. PvP promotes PvP tactics (so in one way you're correct). Staying with your team and working as a team isn't always a good idea in a PvP environment, since lone wolfing will often give you better chances of winning the match. So while PvP does promote one kind of tactics, there are other tactics out there. It's all about what school of tactics you like the best I guess.

You might be onto something when you say that PvP works better when playing on the pubes with strangers, since it's pretty easy to just drop in and go. I personally prefer it a bit more complex than that tho.

But about the lack of PvP servers, I am sorry for you guys even though I don't play much PvP myself. It would be nice if you lot had some more places to go to, for sure.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Hund

[celery 7]

Staying with your team and working as a team isn't always a good idea in a PvP environment, since lone wolfing will often give you better chances of winning the match.

What do you consider as lone wolfing? If you mean that players on the same side prefer to scatter across the map than bunch up together, it's a simple matter of allocating resources. Because a human team is relatively small, having two or more guys' firepower invested in a single area is wasted when the enemy can be taken care of by a single guy and some other place is left uncovered. It doesn't have to mean that everyone does their own thing without communicating, it's just common sense to put the team's potential firepower to best use.

The spreading out tactic works in pretty much any situation if the team has high individual skill. In clanwars the more skilled team usually has its guys spread across the front fairly evenly while the underdog has to come up with alternative tactics, usually rushing to good defensive positions and concentrating on a single flank in hopes of overpowering the individually strong opponents.

To me grouping together resembles a bottleneck in that there is only so much you can accomplish by engaging from a single position no matter how many people you have there. Pvp or otherwise.

[hund 0]

Very true Mr. Celery, bunching up is never a good idea.

By lone wolfing, I mean this: two teams of people want to kill each other. One team (A) stays within mutual support range, the other (B) does not. Now, A members come in from different angles and hit B, most of them get killed because B has most angles covered. But once an A member finds an uncovered sector, he can take out multiple B members because of their relatively close proximity and bad manouverability. So in the end A is liable to win the match because they are lone wolfing (not being mutually supportive at all times).

But if you have the manpower for it, having several groups engage form several position is best. And that is next to impossible if everyone is running around or too dispersed. Teams don't work in a vacuum like they do in most PvP games. There is mutual support both witrhin the team and from adjacent teams, it is a big spider webbie thingy of support. It is as always a matter of the golden mean - too much or too little will get you killed. If you use the above mentioned example, and expand it to a size where team A has the support structure tied down, team B would be hacked into mince meat because they couldn't exploit the same holes that they can in a team versus team engagement.

I guess I just like things to be the way they were back when I was fighting the good fight. People don't wander off alone, if they do they die - coop caters for this mindset better than PvP, so I like coop.

I did not mean to say that PvP tactics are worse than Coop tactics, or vice versa, but there is a difference between the two, so saying that PvP is better for tactics is a moot point in my humble opinion.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Hund

[galzohar 28]

When you're next to your teammates you actually have a chance to react when someone kills one of them. If you're too close to him you'll also get killed before you can react, though, so you need to spread out. Remember, though, that staying together but keeping 10-15m away from eachother is standard infantry tactics.

When you're alone you're watching 90 degrees max (less if you actually want to see people above 100m and use zoom) and can be attacked from the other 270 degrees with no chance for you to react. Be with a team and you can cover much bigger angels. Again staying spread out (10-15m from eachother) is important so you don't all get killed by a single burst/grenade.

PvP is better for RL tactics if the map is properly designed for it (most maps aren't, though, as they spawn each player individually and make it excessively hard for them to work with their team).

COOP is totally different tactics as the AI works very differently than human players. The AI will have a very hard time seeing you at longer distances if you stay quiet (while you can easily see him), but if you fire a shot he shockingly find you from huge distances and through foliage and sometimes even through some solid cover, and also report your exact position to all his buddies (even if you killed him). AI will also never do anything on his own - mostly he'll never anticipate ANY of your tactics. This makes COOP tactics become very very different than PvP tactics.

Edited August 9, 2009 by galzohar

[Cionara 10]

Went on last night and 20 out of the 20 servers I could play on were Co-Op.

We got small map Berzerk running with 64 vs 64 it's awesome

But highpingers will be kicked and our server is german.

[enforcer1975 0]

Long ago a clanmate and i played BF2. It was the two of us vs. 5 of your lone wolves. We were fighting over a single flag and they didn't get it for over 20 minutes...i wonder why...? Must be because we didn't use tactics and we didn't work as a team?

Berzerk maps can be playes with some tactics if you have a team in a voice channel.

The best environment is really a close environment where you have small teams working against eachother. We had that in a mission where we had a bigger bunch of russian players in a team vs. the almost same amount of players on the other side but with small group building. ( 2 clans on the enemy side and about 3 on the other with 3 publics ).

We lost on target location points although we were better killscorewise. The other team had a good gameplay because they could make better us of tactics that the "wild bunch".

We also had the opportunity when OFP was at it's end to play 5 ( clanmates ) vs. 10-15 publics and clanplayers mixed...guess what happened. It's all about teamplay and tactics.