Hardcore - Rush Rule?

[CheepHeep]

Hey guys,

 

I know the default stance on requesting change on our beloved Hardcore server is to say no without giving it proper thought but I'd like to request all of you to keep an open mind and try to consider this proposition for a few minutes and decide on what is best for the regulars playing there. We all want to have fun in the end.

 

Basically, on many occasions, more often than not, maps like Braundorf, Adlernest, Frostbite - a good majority of the main popular maps - end after 1-2 minutes because a single engineer slips through the axis' defence and ends the map. Most of the regulars generally whine afterwards, complaining about not being able to enjoy the map and quite frankly I share their frustration. When a map is voted, its with the intention that we get to play it. If its ends in 2mins for a 15-20minute map. Theres no way we get to experience the map. Plus, its a single engineer that "chooses" to end the map and i doubt everyone on the team would like that engineer to speak for them. Plus when rushing a map, the map will get played again more quickly and regulars will complain about playing the same maps over and over again - this is because it feels like they just played it. So if we played it properly, it would also reduce this kind of feeling because there will be a longer period of time before that map is available again. 2 birds in 1 stone.

 

I propose a short rush limit to counter these kinds of situations. A small enough time limit to allow us to get a good taste of the map but still allows the attacking team to progress and finish the map in a reasonably quick time if they want too. For me, i would pick 3 minutes. Now in these 3 minutes, the allied team can still progress the map - e.g. capturing flags/moving truck in to place/construciting - but they cant complete the final objective - e.g. transmitting documents/gold - until the 3 minutes is up. 

 

This is fair and I would recommend to consider slowly implementing this rule. There will be many who will wish to keep it as close to ETPro atmosphere/conditions as possible and this takes it away from that but the reality is, its not ETPro and there will be a few differences and I feel like if we all were a bit more lenient with minor modifications, we can increase the fun on the server because i feel most are hardwired to say no to any change on Hardcore.

 

**Down side is mainly for the admins as they will have to look out for people rushing. From my experience, most of the regulars there are cooperative and will most likely comply as im pretty sure they want to enjoy the map as well, so in the end, i doubt there'd be that much more effort for our admins.

 

Now again, id like to reiterate what i said earlier. This does not prevent allies from progressing map - they just arent able to complete the main objective - so if there are arguments saying allies are just going to sit there because they cant doing anything until the rush limit has expired, they will be deemed invalid.

 

Give it some thought, theres no rush to this (oh the irony). Please consider! Post your opinions. I've also attached a poll for a quick visual summary of the opinions on this matter.

 

Thanks!

 

P.S. I'd say that HC regulars opinions should hold more weight. I know there will be some posting their opinion on the matter but if you dont play there then Im not sure you have the know how to cast a valid opinion as you dont know the current arguments on the server that take place because of this. Post away anyway.

[liquidfx]

I'm down with some anti-rush implementation. Rushing maps can definitely be a hamper on the fun, even though it is fun to do the rushing

[Dest!Ny]

So why is it that maps get rushed? Generally speaking allie dont have access to the final objective until something is done (dyno or tank). So how do they get through? The only thing I can come up with from the top of my head is undercover covies. So how would you see limiting the ammount of covies per team further? If you see it as effective as a standard rush rule than it wont require any adminwork and wont break the flow of the map

[BSM]

It's seriously just a matter of Axis not defending whatsoever or AFK's at the beginning of the match that open such a huge door to complete objectives quickly. Especially on a map like adlernest or frostbite, it's over before you know it.

 

Although i'd like to say that Axis just needs to be better at defending, the truth is that it's just always going to be like that. There are those who go to hardcore for obj-based play who make sure to defend and those who go solely to frag, very few do both. Even though I hate the idea of implementing a rush-rule, I also hate it when I take the objective at the beginning of the game and feel bad about securing it. I almost feel obligated to postpone the cap as long as possible so I don't disappoint everyone in the server. For example, I stand on the top of the ramp on Adler or stand on the top of the trasmitter tower on Frostbite to give axis a chance to kill me and secure. People on allies and axis already ask the obj carrier to not secure it yet so the map can be enjoyed for longer, so it might not be a bad idea. 

 

I think it should be the shortest possible rule if implemented, though. If Axis doesn't have it together after 2 full minutes, they were probably going to lose anyway.

 

Edit: On second thought, depending on the map 3 Minutes is probably the more realistic option.  

Edited September 1, 2017 by BSM

[Chuckun]

I still say no tbh! And the reason I say it is if allies are strategizing that well and axis aren't working as a team to battle it, then allies win quick and that is hardcore!

 

It's easy enough to change class, change spawn and selfkill to get to the objective if allies sneak through..

 

Just my opinion though

[BSM]

So why is it that maps get rushed? Generally speaking allie dont have access to the final objective until something is done (dyno or tank). So how do they get through? The only thing I can come up with from the top of my head is undercover covies. So how would you see limiting the ammount of covies per team further? If you see it as effective as a standard rush rule than it wont require any adminwork and wont break the flow of the map

 

I like this idea, especially when the server is 6v6+. There's so much chaos in a full game that 3 Cov-Ops can completely roll the axis team in no time. If the no-rush rule falls flat, i'd like to see this considered myself.

[CheepHeep]

I still say no tbh! And the reason I say it is if allies are strategizing that well and axis aren't working as a team to battle it, then allies win quick and that is hardcore!

 

It's easy enough to change class, change spawn and selfkill to get to the objective if allies sneak through..

 

Just my opinion though

 

Nothing to do with allies strategizing. Generally, only 2 - maximum - out of the whole team rush without the rest knowing. Even their own team gets annoyed that it got finished. Yeah, its called Hardcore, but I think we are relying too much upon the name, using it as a reason to make things "difficult" but at the end of the day, its not enjoyable. Whats the point of it being Hardcore, if its not fun? I love Hardcore but when maps finish in a minute, especially on my favourite maps - which is where it tends to get rushed - i feel so disappointed. If i feel like that, you can be sure more will to.

 

Rush = No fun for anyone. AntiRush Rule = prevents Rushing = Everyone happy. So why not?

 

Nope. Its not easy to change class, change spawn, self kill. It takes too long and by then, allies have already set up a defence. You wouldn't have enough time to defuse a dynamite or retrieve an objective. 99% axis will fail by this method.

 

 

So why is it that maps get rushed? Generally speaking allie dont have access to the final objective until something is done (dyno or tank). So how do they get through? The only thing I can come up with from the top of my head is undercover covies. So how would you see limiting the ammount of covies per team further? If you see it as effective as a standard rush rule than it wont require any adminwork and wont break the flow of the map

 

Yes Covies paired with Engineers make a great team. Whether theres one covy or two or twenty. It doesn't matter. Rushing will still occur. I wouldn't see reducing the number of covies to be an effective inhibitor. Besides, people will be fighting over covert ops class just like people do with panzerfaust except covies are more common. This will just bring up another issue. 

 

Most of our servers implement this rule. Its been done, its effective. So i dont see how looking for other options to prevent rushing should be looked into when the answer is right in front of us. Honestly, Its not that much hardwork to implement this rule. First step would be to familiarise everyone with the rule. They will still rush in the beginning but slowly, they will stop. Then we can enforce it properly. 

 

I stick by my choice.

 

 

It's seriously just a matter of Axis not defending whatsoever or AFK's at the beginning of the match that open such a huge door to complete objectives quickly. Especially on a map like adlernest or frostbite, it's over before you know it.

 

Although i'd like to say that Axis just needs to be better at defending, the truth is that it's just always going to be like that. There are those who go to hardcore for obj-based play who make sure to defend and those who go solely to frag, very few do both. Even though I hate the idea of implementing a rush-rule, I also hate it when I take the objective at the beginning of the game and feel bad about securing it. I almost feel obligated to postpone the cap as long as possible so I don't disappoint everyone in the server. For example, I stand on the top of the ramp on Adler or stand on the top of the trasmitter tower on Frostbite to give axis a chance to kill me and secure. People on allies and axis already ask the obj carrier to not secure it yet so the map can be enjoyed for longer, so it might not be a bad idea. 

 

I think it should be the shortest possible rule if implemented, though. If Axis doesn't have it together after 2 full minutes, they were probably going to lose anyway.

 

Edit: On second thought, depending on the map 3 Minutes is probably the more realistic option.  

 

This is a realistic answer. +1

 

 

 

Thanks for the opinions/responses dudesss!! <3

[Gengis]

HC is a hardcore server meaning what it means. Meaning we can do almost anything.

 

The main problem is that many players dont care about the objectives .... they care about thier personal stats making it easier to rush.

 

And rushing a map is .... fun. I did it once yesterday.

 

Gengis

[kajto3]

Some thoughts of an inactive gamer:

- I agree with Chuckun and BSM in his first post. Rushers will succeed if the defending team doesn't do it's best to protect objective. I don't like when map ends too fast, but if it does I don't blame rusher (and I don't want to blame admins!) but I blame my team.

- Hogging objective is much worse. Fighting against whole allied team in transmitter brings no fun at all (unless you run in with double jump and adrenaline and manage to secure obj, but that's another kind of hardcore).

- Prohibiting playing for objective on an objective server might bring opposite results IMO, and it doesn't matter if there's 3 or 1 minute rush rule. Personally, if I were fresh player and someone would gib or put me spec for doing what is meant in this game, I'd probably leave. But I don't know how the rush rule works on another servers, maybe someone would tell us.

 

I won't quit ET if you implement this. So will most of regulars. If it keeps ET alive for longer I say F1

[CheepHeep]

Well people leave when their favourite maps finish instantly anyway. This happens too often though which is why i made a post. Really mixed responses imo but nice to see the thought process involved and reasoning behind each opinion.Quite enlightening.

 

Ill ask some regulars on the server to see what htey think. Will post SS if possible.

- Prohibiting playing for objective on an objective server might bring opposite results IMO, and it doesn't matter if there's 3 or 1 minute rush rule. Personally, if I were fresh player and someone would gib or put me spec for doing what is meant in this game, I'd probably leave. But I don't know how the rush rule works on another servers, maybe someone would tell us.

I won't quit ET if you implement this. So will most of regulars. If it keeps ET alive for longer I say F1

 

We have this rule on many of our servers. Still have a pretty solid playerbase.

[L3ftY.]

The server has survived for countless centuries without a Rush rule. As much as I like Rush (great band imo) HC remains different from other servers in that respect with no limitations.

 

One team attacks and the other team defends and anything goes.

[Sick jacken]

I'm gonna go with the no rush rule, as gengis said you can do almost everything u want

[CheepHeep]

Awesome! I just wanted to see where people stood. I respect that! THanks for the responses. 

[MikeSlayer]

Trust a chicken to be scared of the rush 

[zrong]

HC is a hardcore server meaning what it means. Meaning we can do almost anything.

 

The main problem is that many players dont care about the objectives .... they care about thier personal stats making it easier to rush.

 

And rushing a map is .... fun. I did it once yesterday.

 

Gengis

 

This!

 

Plus with anti rush rule even more players will care less about objective, meaning the core that likes teamwork could leave server. The way is it now pleases both sides of the coin.

 

Clearly Cheep's change of scenery lead to unforeseen new directions.

Edited September 1, 2017 by zrong