Legitimate Scenario Strat or Exploit?

[Boulderbolg]

I would like some clarification from staff or feedback from the community on a specific strategy (or exploit?) for the Serpent's Passage scenario. Recently we had a GM ask us to not hold the part in Serpent's Passage near our spawn area, and we were directed by the GM to turn in the part. As far as I can tell, holding the part is a legitimate defensive strategy for playing this scenario. While a player holds the part near the spawn area, the holder of the part can still be killed by both melee and ranged enemy players. A "zone wall" triggers the resetting of the part if the part is held too close to the spawn area/guards. Is there an exploit here or mechanic that I am not aware of?

Thanks and cheers,
BB

[Toonman]

I think taking and holding the part is against the "spirit" of the SC and a pretty cheese move in it's own right. Just turn it in and play the game. That said, I've also seen more times than I can count, premades spawn-camping pugs refusing to even pick the part up. That whole SC is pretty trash to be honest and I never que for it anymore.

[TenTonHammer]

Holding the part is not "a legitimate defensive strategy" it just drags out the scenario

It dosnt matter if the part holder can be killed or not

[GodlessCrom]

I mean, it can be a legit strat if you hold it briefly while waiting for your team to regain middle so you can grab it again. I think if you hold it while you're getting farmed, or while farming the enemy, then it's kinda lame. Wasn't in the SC in question though, so can't comment on it.

[wargrimnir]

This is something we would warn a player for in-game. There's an extent of retreat that is acceptable, waiting for respawn/regroup.

However what is more frequently happening is players outclassed hiding from a superior force and keeping the part behind guards to prevent the superior team from winning. Or, for the even more dickish move, the superior team holding it at their spawn to goad a weaker opponent into coming close enough they can roll over them racking up kills and points simultaneously.

In both of the more grievous situations, the intent behind correcting player behavior is to improve the feel of the game. No one wants to be farmed. No one wants a clearly losing battle to be dragged out longer because of spite. Both sides would rather have the scenario end as soon as possible so they can regroup and try again. Or just go do something else if the superior force (i.e. likely premade) is so insistent on stomping anything that enters the queue.

Without these things enforced, player resentment skyrockets, and people will sooner opt out of playing the game at all, as opposed to playing a game where fairness is highly valued.

[Boulderbolg]

Holding the part is not "a legitimate defensive strategy" it just drags out the scenario

It dosnt matter if the part holder can be killed or not

If that is the case, is every defensive strategy in every other scenario also not legitimate? For example, capping both objectives one time in Logrin's Forge, and then simply defending one of the objectives for the rest of the scenario? This isn't much different, it's just an objective that doesn't move.

[Boulderbolg]

This is something we would warn a player for in-game. There's an extent of retreat that is acceptable, waiting for respawn/regroup.

However what is more frequently happening is players outclassed hiding from a superior force and keeping the part behind guards to prevent the superior team from winning. Or, for the even more dickish move, the superior team holding it at their spawn to goad a weaker opponent into coming close enough they can roll over them racking up kills and points simultaneously.

In both of the more grievous situations, the intent behind correcting player behavior is to improve the feel of the game. No one wants to be farmed. No one wants a clearly losing battle to be dragged out longer because of spite. Both sides would rather have the scenario end as soon as possible so they can regroup and try again. Or just go do something else if the superior force (i.e. likely premade) is so insistent on stomping anything that enters the queue.

Without these things enforced, player resentment skyrockets, and people will sooner opt out of playing the game at all, as opposed to playing a game where fairness is highly valued.

I completely agree with the former examples. Exploiting guards is definitely not legitimate. That should be very clear to everyone. However, I am now unclear on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable as far as defensive strategies for other scenarios that do not exploit guards, or create other impossible scenarios for enemy players to counter (clearly, my original situation does not create an impossible scenario for the enemy players to counter). For example, take Logrin's Forge. I assume that capping both objectives, and then simply defending one of them for the rest of the scenario is not a legitimate strategy?

[TenTonHammer]

If that is the case, is every defensive strategy in every other scenario also not legitimate? For example, capping both objectives one time in Logrin's Forge, and then simply defending one of the objectives for the rest of the scenario? This isn't much different, it's just an objective that doesn't move.

nope

your just draging out the match more than it needs to

basically like going into a capture the flag map and not capping any of the objs

[Cimba]

This is something we would warn a player for in-game. There's an extent of retreat that is acceptable, waiting for respawn/regroup.

However what is more frequently happening is players outclassed hiding from a superior force and keeping the part behind guards to prevent the superior team from winning. Or, for the even more dickish move, the superior team holding it at their spawn to goad a weaker opponent into coming close enough they can roll over them racking up kills and points simultaneously.

In both of the more grievous situations, the intent behind correcting player behavior is to improve the feel of the game. No one wants to be farmed. No one wants a clearly losing battle to be dragged out longer because of spite. Both sides would rather have the scenario end as soon as possible so they can regroup and try again. Or just go do something else if the superior force (i.e. likely premade) is so insistent on stomping anything that enters the queue.

Without these things enforced, player resentment skyrockets, and people will sooner opt out of playing the game at all, as opposed to playing a game where fairness is highly valued.

Okay I tried to formulate this very clever and neutral but I'm just not that good in english.

I think that warning players for using a strategy that is clearly within the scenario design is not a sustainable strategy. The reason is that with this warning you impress your personal opinion on how something should be played on others. This opinion varies from GM to GM and at the end of the day you have a lot of drama because people feel unfairly treated or harassed.
This will piss of the GM staff and we have another nice loop of bad staff/player interaction.

If there is a cheese tactic where staff agrees on that it's bad, why not change the scenario design to make it impossible to use? I know this takes time and resources but then it might be better to rotate the scenario out of the current selection instead of constantly warning players.
If you don't know/have the time to think about how to fix a strategy. Just make a thread with the challenge of fixing a particular cheese strategy.

[Azarael]

We can do this because we have internal agreement on it.

This server attempts to break the common situation in which objective scenarios were played as TDM, with one side ending up in a spawncamp. I regard superior teams deliberately holding the objectives with no intention of trying to win so that they can farm kills as a violation of the spirit of the scenario and I fully support the GM team acting against teams which do this.

Now, bear in mind that not all of the objective scenarios were written by me, and Serpent's Passage is one such scenario. When it comes to my scenarios, I add measures designed to defeat players doing this.

You raise the example of Logrin's Forge. This, while still not optimal behaviour, is a valid strategy for winning that scenario, akin to parking the bus, whereas holding the part in the spawn is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the intended playstyle of that scenario, objective running, and turn it into renown farming.