Legitimate Scenario Strat or Exploit?

[Cimba]

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.

I'm not entirely clear if you're responing to my post or not. If so:

Sure you can. I just don't think it's the best approach. If I can report to GM everytime I think someone used a cheese tactic then the amount of complaints the GMs get will vastly increase. At some points they have had enough. That where it goes south for both sides. So I believe avoiding situations where cheese tatics are possible are the better solutions. You have plenty of scnearios available that work reasonably well.

I don't think we need to talk about situations when one team is so clearly superior that they can virtually tank the guards. That's just boring. However what happens occasionally is that we dominate, some random picks up the objective while we are busy and then continues to block the enemy WC with us. Nothing much we can do about it if he doesn't listen to us.
We get blamed for spawn camping even though it's the best point to contain the opposing team.

Anyway cheese tatics IMO are only interesting when the scales are much more even. An example.

You're getting into Mourkain Temple a bit late for what ever reason. The opposing team holds the 'thing' but you manage to push them back. At some point the cannons start to pound down on you from the WC. You're not that superior that you can continue in spite of this. Maybe a couple people die from your side and you get pushed back by canon fire and respawn. At this point the holder is again well within the range where he get points. This repeats until the scenario is over and the superior team lost by a big margin.

Is this a cheese tatic of the inferior team because they didn't surrender the 'thing' to a slighty superior team? They could rightly argue that they fought and won. They didn't even choose the location of the fight, they got pushed back into their WC area.

Now you can turn this around. And hold your objective with a slighty superior/even team on purpose right a the edge where you still get points (It's not that far from the WC, we tested it). Everytime you're at the risk of losing the objective you move back in canon range until things cleared up again. Thus giving the opposing team no chance to ever recover.

You couldn't even be accused of renown farming because you're just waiting at your spawn. The only thing you're guilty of is not offering a fair fight. I would still consider it a cheese tatic because you don't give the enemy any chance of recovery.

You can do more or less the same with Phoenix Gate. I think you get 2 points per kill so you just have to wait for someone running into canon range. If I'm wrong you can still do it if you tapped it once effectively dening any chance for the opposing team to recover.

Coming back to the spirit of the scenario. Is waiting in canon range, protecting your flag/objective while you have the lead violating the spirit of the scenario? I don't think so. With the change to objetive based scenarios everything became about winning instead of killing. So minimizing your risk of losing is actually very important.

[wargrimnir]

We could go over the specific instances for a week. The point I was making should have been clear enough. If you're intentionally dragging out a scenario instead of playing it, they we have a reason to stick our noses in and correct that. Considering how often we need to do this currently, it's not a fault of the scenarios (where the majority of them run smoothly), but specific groups of players who default to this behavior.

[Akalukz]

If you are using the 1 shot guards as part of your "strategy" then you are probably wrong.

[Cimba]

We could go over the specific instances for a week. The point I was making should have been clear enough. If you're intentionally dragging out a scenario instead of playing it, they we have a reason to stick our noses in and correct that. Considering how often we need to do this currently, it's not a fault of the scenarios (where the majority of them run smoothly), but specific groups of players who default to this behavior.

Well I guess there are some players who try to break things in order to make them better. Unfortunately when no one wants to repair them they just stay broken. I guess there is no further use to argue.

[wargrimnir]

We could go over the specific instances for a week. The point I was making should have been clear enough. If you're intentionally dragging out a scenario instead of playing it, they we have a reason to stick our noses in and correct that. Considering how often we need to do this currently, it's not a fault of the scenarios (where the majority of them run smoothly), but specific groups of players who default to this behavior.

Well I guess there are some players who try to break things in order to make them better. Unfortunately when no one wants to repair them they just stay broken. I guess there is no further use to argue.

Seeing as you're responding to a thread call "Legit Strat or Exploit", you should expect the responses here with the stance of a GM in mind.

If you want to make your own thread "How to fix XX scenario", then go right ahead. Bringing up rare occurrences that encourage exploitative gameplay styles sounds more like justifications to do so, rather than 'how to fix it'. But then, you're looking to talk to a dev about it in another thread anyway. I'm not in charge of fixing things.

[Cimba]

We could go over the specific instances for a week. The point I was making should have been clear enough. If you're intentionally dragging out a scenario instead of playing it, they we have a reason to stick our noses in and correct that. Considering how often we need to do this currently, it's not a fault of the scenarios (where the majority of them run smoothly), but specific groups of players who default to this behavior.

Well I guess there are some players who try to break things in order to make them better. Unfortunately when no one wants to repair them they just stay broken. I guess there is no further use to argue.

Seeing as you're responding to a thread call "Legit Strat or Exploit", you should expect the responses here with the stance of a GM in mind.

If you want to make your own thread "How to fix XX scenario", then go right ahead. Bringing up rare occurrences that encourage exploitative gameplay styles sounds more like justifications to do so, rather than 'how to fix it'. But then, you're looking to talk to a dev about it in another thread anyway. I'm not in charge of fixing things.

Well **** it but you're right about that in some sense. Even though I still believe main reason for shitty behaviour in scenarios is that it's possible to play that way. My guildies are late so I might as well start with this thing.

[Geordy]

Insert a flag to both spawns. At each playerdeath add a check for distance between player's current location and the home flag. If the distance is below a certain treshhold the killer's rewards get multiplied by a factor lower than one. The factor becomes smaller and smaller the shorter the distance.