PDA

View Full Version : What do you think about turtling tactic?



Valerria
26-08-2006, 03:20
Haven't had time to sit through the recordings yet but the match reports from EVIL vs. IQ certainly were interesting reads. EVIL has been running the Mo/As for a while and finally paid for it. Perhaps they'll at least think about ditching their mesmers now...

TLLOTS
26-08-2006, 06:53
Agreed. iQ did a superb job countering EVIL's build by turtling in round two and three. Even more impressive was their fantastic use of meteor shower and other fire spells to quickly nullify any NPC advantage EVIL had. A very well deserved victory, especially since it seems most favoured EVIL making it to the finals.

Servant of Kali
26-08-2006, 12:29
Turtling is awesome. Personally, i dont like when guild uses the same build over and over for months. Sorry. I like suprise factor. iQ knew what Evil would play, since Evil plays it all the time, it's always the same. One profession changes perhaps but team build as well as team tactic is the same. I love when teams learn to counter other teams, which is exactly what iQ did.

Evil is a good guild, of course, but maybe they should discover variety..

Shadowleaf
26-08-2006, 13:41
Yeah, iQ was amazing. And turtling rocks, and sometimes the only option.

And yeah, I don't see why they think they can keep running the same build over and over and over and then take it to the World Championship! They deserved to lose.

dantheman5415
26-08-2006, 17:19
And yeah, I don't see why they think they can keep running the same build over and over and over and then take it to the World Championship! They deserved to lose.

That was a little harsh, but I kinda agree...if you don't adapt to the changing metagame, you won't be able to succeed. EvIL had a huge headstart in the early/mid days of GW PvP regarding knowledge of the game, but slowly other guilds are catching up.

Tucks
26-08-2006, 17:51
I wouldn't say turtleing is aweosme, but it was the best tactic iQ could come up with at that time, its a shame for evil though, as they could have run standard boon prots and won that easily, because they are the better players.

Buddah
26-08-2006, 20:42
because they are the better players.If they were the better players that day they would have won. Instead they weren't so they lost.

What this really showed is that winning at the flag isn't too important in the early and mid game. Only time it was highly contested was at VoD of the 3rd.

David Holtzman
26-08-2006, 21:20
What this really showed is that winning at the flag isn't too important in the early and mid game. Only time it was highly contested was at VoD of the 3rd.

No, what it showed was that a 10%morale boost is not sufficient to effectively assault a well defended turtle which is something we all knew already. The problem comes about from a failure in the way GW is designed. A team needs very specific skills to be able to assault a turtle and those skills are not necessarily useful outside the assault. Unlike fighting games or RTS, GW limits the number of moves you're allowed to take into the battle. That means that if the opponent is smart he can create a scenario where it is no longer enough to simply apply the skills you have, rather you require tools you do not.

Buddah
27-08-2006, 04:49
That means that if the opponent is smart he can create a scenario where it is no longer enough to simply apply the skills you have, rather you require tools you do not.
And who's fault was it they didn't put these need skills in their bar. :wink:

Besides what you call a failure in GW's design I'd call a sucess as it makes other strats other than butting heads at the flag viable.

David Holtzman
27-08-2006, 05:04
And who's fault was it they didn't put these need skills in their bar. :wink:

GW, for limiting the number of moves you can take in. If you want to be effective in all situations you end up effective in none. That's a game design flaw more than a player flaw and it's one you only will see in this sort of game. I'll give you an example:

If you've read sirlin, you know about his "low-strong" scenario. He did basically exactly what iQ did in principle. He created a brick wall and forced his opponent to try and pass it before a real "normal' fight could begin. In both cases it was an excellent move. But here's the difference: in Street Fighter you always have the tools you need available. That means that if the opponent adopts a strategy of focusing the game completely on one aspect, you have a chance to try and stop that. In GW, you may not necessarily have that chance because you may not have gone in with the right skills. The tools needed to win the scenario may simply not exist for you. That's degenerative gameplay.


Besides what you call a failure in GW's design I'd call a sucess as it makes other strats other than butting heads at the flag viable.

Other strats viable = very good. Creating a strat that is physically impossible to counter with the moves you brought in = bad. It's bad because it makes the game revolve around bringing the right moves more than playing them correctly. At the high end, if that is what it comes to, then it turns out GW may very well be a degenerate game not worth truly competitive consideration. I'd hate to see that.

Of course, it's relatively easy to fix. You just need map mechanics that force variably encounters. GW is all about seting up encounters correctly and then applying skills to the right places. In order for this mechanism to function properly the game needs to force different kinds of encounters. It would be easy enough to reward a team with, say, 20% damage bonus for holding the stand 5 minutes. They could limit the time on this bonus to 5min as well, so it wouldn't remain constant throughout the match. In this way GW could make up for the lack of highly specific tooling needed to do a number of tasks including assaulting a turtle. It also offers a significant reward for utilizing various facets of the map and a serious disincentive to ignore them.

arredondo
27-08-2006, 05:12
I thought it was awful. Anytime a strategy works that allows turtling for 30 minutes to get the win, the play mechanics are broken. Arena.net wants high level play to be respected and watched by the public of GW, but those matches are a huge step backwards in that regard.

In boxing if one of the participants simply turtles most of every round, the match is ended by the referee and the other boxer is declared the winner. They have a rule in the play mechanics to avoid the very thing that turns a spectator contest into an actionless bore-fest, but GW PvP obviously does not.

Props to iQ for legally winning by any means necessary... that's exactly what a team should do, especially if money is on the line. The blame isn't with them but the mechanics that allow it to happen. Hopefully that's the very first thing addressed in the next nerf update.

Hendrixbrother
27-08-2006, 06:51
This tactic iQ employed did not work because of a game imbalance. It did not work because iQ are superior players to EvIL. It did not work because turtling instantly is a good strategy.

It worked because EvIL was running a gimmick.

Whatever you want to claim, EvIL does indeed run a gimmick build. One of the most complex, successful, and cerebral gimmicks ever developed, but a gimmick in the end. Their entire build can be summed up with one word.

Movement.

EvIL's build allows them to outsmart and outplay their opposition. It gives them the tools to handle just about anything their team throws at them. They are able to split up, confuse, and kill whatever they need. They are flexible, they are patient, and they are adaptive. EvIL waits for their opposition to make a mistake, and when they do, they capitalize. They have the ability to be wherever they want whenever they want, and can always outthink and outmaneuver their opposition. Well, almost always.

They can run monks that are nearly invulnerable for one reason, they take no damage. The mesmers have distortion, the monks have return and dark escape, the ele has blinding flash, and the assassins simply cannot be killed. All this means that they can run monks without energy management, because their monks don't need to heal like others do; they take so much less damage than anyone else. They sacrifice real defense for movement.

iQ knew this. They knew it was futile to try and kill EvIL, so they didn't even try. iQ was able to eliminate one factor of the game; movement. The main problem for EvIL was that the guild lord, unlike EvIL, does not kite, and does not have dark escape. He sits there and takes all the damage. Those monks that EvIL were able to run could not hold up when they actually had healing to do, and consequently they lost.

shamed
27-08-2006, 07:04
It worked because EvIL was running a gimmick.

They have the ability to be wherever they want whenever they want, and can always outthink and outmaneuver their opposition. Well, almost always.

So what exactly is a non-gimmick build? You seem to suggest that a non-gimmick build is one which is able to counter the opposition in every situation and as far as I know no such build exists.

arredondo
27-08-2006, 10:19
There should be no way that a team can possibly win by turtling for 30 minutes - period. I agreed above that iQ were right in using it, but in the big picture of things it is an issue that Arena.net should address immediately. Say what you will about EvIL's build but it involves actually engaging the opponent, which should be the minimum requirement in any high level match. If Arena.net does the right thing, we'll never have to waste 30 minutes of watching inaction ever again.

Louis Ste Colombe
27-08-2006, 10:31
It worked because EvIL was running a gimmick.

Whatever you want to claim, EvIL does indeed run a gimmick build.

...

EvIL's build allows them to outsmart and outplay their opposition. It gives them the tools to handle just about anything their team throws at them. They are able to split up, confuse, and kill whatever they need. They are flexible, they are patient, and they are adaptive.

:shocked:

Oddly enough, for me that would be the definition of non gimmick build. To be honest, iQ build was way more gimmicky than EvIL one... It was way more "I got one trick in my bag that will outplay you". It's interesting to see that iQ won by figuring out what bag EvIL would bring, second guessed it well. That does not mean EvIL was gimmiky.
Predictable =/= gimmick.

Louis,

Louis Ste Colombe
27-08-2006, 10:34
There should be no way that a team can possibly win by turtling for 30 minutes - period. I agreed above that iQ were right in using it, but in the big picture of things it is an issue that Arena.net should address immediately. Say what you will about EvIL's build but it involves actually engaging the opponent, which should be the minimum requirement in any high level match. If Arena.net does the right thing, we'll never have to waste 30 minutes of watching inaction ever again.

The one worrying thought is that I expect other guilds to copy iQ now. Oh the Joy :cry:

I can't wait for the game with two turtles facing each other...

Louis,

TLLOTS
27-08-2006, 11:12
There should be no way that a team can possibly win by turtling for 30 minutes - period. I agreed above that iQ were right in using it, but in the big picture of things it is an issue that Arena.net should address immediately. Say what you will about EvIL's build but it involves actually engaging the opponent
Actually iQ's setup more actively engages than EvIL's does. EvIL's build is all about movement, you try and take them on at the flag stand and they'll just teleport and dark escape all over the place leaving you to waste a great deal of time running after them while their assassins gank your npcs. iQ won because they forced EvIL to engage them, something EvIL just wasn't setup to do.

galad
27-08-2006, 12:11
Actually iQ's setup more actively engages than EvIL's does. EvIL's build is all about movement, you try and take them on at the flag stand and they'll just teleport and dark escape all over the place leaving you to waste a great deal of time running after them while their assassins gank your npcs. iQ won because they forced EvIL to engage them, something EvIL just wasn't setup to do.

Yes that 30 minutes of inactivity looked like engagement to me too. Sure their build engaged at the end but saying that they more actively did that is just moronic, after all they did nothing for half an hour.

TLLOTS
27-08-2006, 12:54
Yes that 30 minutes of inactivity looked like engagement to me too. Sure their build engaged at the end but saying that they more actively did that is just moronic, after all they did nothing for half an hour.
And what were EvIL doing this time? They were even less inclined to engage than iQ was, jumping in and back out once every couple of minutes at best.

You simply have to realise that EvIL's build was built entierly around avoiding an engagement in order to keep themselves alive and do damage to their enemy who's running around like a headless chicken trying to get them. What iQ did was simply give EvIL no choice but to engage, something they just couldn't do 8vs8.

After all, had iQ charged out to try and engage EvIL, do you think EvIL would have stayed to try and engage them? Of course not, they'd have done exactly what I said before, they'd jump and run around avoiding damage and wasting time while their assassins gank everything in sight.

MaximumSquid
27-08-2006, 14:52
I thought it was awful. Anytime a strategy works that allows turtling for 30 minutes to get the win, the play mechanics are broken. I'm with arredondo here.

I was impressed with what iQ did in VoD, but having them sit around in their base with next to no pentalty is pretty weak.

From a spectator standpoint I was ready to turn that crap off and switch to Proffessional Golf on the TV.

If a team holds the middle flag for more then 10 minutes the match should be considered a skunk victory against the other team.

or. . .

Make it so the team that owns the flag has a viable advantage that will allow them to siege the other teams base.

Shadowleaf
27-08-2006, 15:01
What kind of metagame would you rather see though... Stalling at the Guild Lord till VoD or stalling by jumping around and waiting for the other team to make a mistake?

Both seem really lame to me. =\

By the way, I think iQ are better players. :tongue: They are my heros!

Hendrixbrother
27-08-2006, 15:52
So what exactly is a non-gimmick build? You seem to suggest that a non-gimmick build is one which is able to counter the opposition in every situation and as far as I know no such build exists.

I suggest no such thing. Every build has a weakness, this is obvious. I am merely pointing out that a build with NO defense cannot truly be considered a balanced build.

Let's look at all the defensive skills in EvIL's build for a second.

Protective Spirit. Spirit Bond. Blinding Flash.

Wow what a list. Add the fact that their monks have no energy management, and so you don't have a lot of healing either. The entirety of their damage reduction comes from their kiting, stances, and movement. This "put all your eggs in one basket" mentality makes the build a gimmick.

Xunlai Agent
27-08-2006, 18:30
EviL are a very good guildbut they don't vary the basic mechanincs of their build (it was gimmicky or it would have beaten the Turtle). iQ knew exactly what EviL would bring and we all did, so they brainstormed how they could break them and they did it very well....

I think ANet will change the mechanics in respect to this.

Buddah
27-08-2006, 18:54
GW, for limiting the number of moves you can take in. If you want to be effective in all situations you end up effective in none. That's a game design flaw more than a player flaw and it's one you only will see in this sort of game. Which is a success as well as it creates a strategic guessing game of sorts. Also the fact that the format for tourney was best of 3 allows for changes so you're not locked in completely into one look


GW has been liken to Magic: The Gathering since the begining. M:tG runs on much the same premise. Go once with your main deck. Second and third match you can go to your sideboard to change tactics and bring in the tools you need. Evil had the chance before the third match to retool, they made the choose not to. They failed at adapting, not some game flaw gave the match away.

As a whole your arguement can be twisted to condemn Evil's typical game play, stalling out at the flag while one or two assassins gank NPCs. How many times have they won in VoD from this strat? I've seen it in 75% of their matchs.

Tucks
27-08-2006, 19:40
Is anyone else starting to feel like the builds in GvG are turning into rock, paper, scissors with all the new skills being added? This thread is showing it, playing GvG shows it, and there has been alot of discussion about this in many parts of the community, such as WoC. TA is already like this.

David Holtzman
27-08-2006, 23:15
There should be no way that a team can possibly win by turtling for 30 minutes - period.

Why, because it's no fun to watch? There's no reason turtling shouldn't be a valid move. It's not as if it's a quirk of GW. Every competitive game has its turtle moves be they FPS or RTS or Chess.


If Arena.net does the right thing, we'll never have to waste 30 minutes of watching inaction ever again.

The purpose of the tournament is to win it, not to provide you with entertainment. Therefore your lack thereof is not sufficient reason to change a thing.

************************************************** ********


Which is a success as well as it creates a strategic guessing game of sorts. Also the fact that the format for tourney was best of 3 allows for changes so you're not locked in completely into one look

Somewhat. Kept strictly to a tournament setting I agree that a grasp of the metagame is important. However, the implication is for ladder play. In ladder play you can't effectively guess at the meta because there are literally thousands of guilds. If a team chooses to force one sort of encounter and you are built to be able to generally fight all, it's a bit silly that you'd lose just because the game adds things for their side but not yours. The problem is that VoD was intended to end games by making the winning team win faster. However, instead of doing this what it created was its own sort of game that can be built around. Which in a tournament I think is fine, but a ladder of 30min matches that is the only way to enter the tournament system, it becomes a problem.


GW has been liken to Magic: The Gathering since the begining. M:tG runs on much the same premise. Go once with your main deck. Second and third match you can go to your sideboard to change tactics and bring in the tools you need. Evil had the chance before the third match to retool, they made the choose not to. They failed at adapting, not some game flaw gave the match away.

GW has been likened to M:TG indeed, but there are some fundamental differences: Movement, NPCs, VoD. If I were to play some creature to block for someone else's game, the M:TG community would be in an uproar. However, that is precisely what happens with NPCs. If I had to chase someone down for my creature to attack them, M:TG wouldn't function well at all. And of course, if I instigated the same VoD rules 30min into a match (or however long) I'm sure people would be wondering what on earth I was doing.

GW blends from M:TG and an FPS, and therefore has problems that occur when the two clash. The power to build around a concept in a pure cardgame is very strong, but it comes into conflict with the ability to evade concepts through the movement of an FPS. In an FPS the skills are all in the player; they always have all tools available for them. However a cardgame with all cards added in would never work.

What GW needs to do is add in game mechanics that reward and punish effectively. The flag is a good example, as are the traps of the Warrior style maps. In order to get around somewhat the immense advantage someone gains by exploiting the design of the game to deny the enemy the tools they need, the game needs to force at least 3 sorts of encounters to occur. A flag a trap and a lord are good examples, but in order for these to work the goals need to be more important.


As a whole your arguement can be twisted to condemn Evil's typical game play, stalling out at the flag while one or two assassins gank NPCs. How many times have they won in VoD from this strat? I've seen it in 75% of their matchs.

Indeed, however they use all 3 encounter types mentioned above. Sure they're incredibly effective at it, but that's not a concern of mine. As long as the game rewards deep and advanced play I'm happy. Using one strategy is not my concern. I want to eliminate the ability to play on the difference between M:TG and an FPS.

************************************************** ********


This thread is showing it, playing GvG shows it, and there has been alot of discussion about this in many parts of the community, such as WoC.

On the contrary, I expect situations of RPS to occur less and less. The more skills in the game the easier it is to find skills that have all sorts of uses. Skills that will be effective in all encounter types.

arredondo
28-08-2006, 01:10
Why, because it's no fun to watch? There's no reason turtling shouldn't be a valid move. It's not as if it's a quirk of GW. Every competitive game has its turtle moves be they FPS or RTS or Chess.



The purpose of the tournament is to win it, not to provide you with entertainment. Therefore your lack thereof is not sufficient reason to change a thing.


Therefore, using your logic, let's encourage Arena.net fixes the system so the opposite can happen as well. Let's hope they make it possible for a high level team to win two matches in the semi-finals in 30 seconds instead of 30 minutes. Some big mega-zapping uber team attack that has weaknesses, but if not stopped can almost instantly wipe out an entire team and their Guild Lord.

Thrills and chills, right? As long as it gets the win, Arena.net shouldn't do anything to prevent it, right? Who cares that everyone and their brother will copy it and GvG insta-nuke matches will be over in a blink of an eye, it's all about the win, right?

Or maybe not.

David Holtzman
28-08-2006, 03:13
Therefore, using your logic, let's encourage Arena.net fixes the system so the opposite can happen as well.

It can. It requires an awful other team, but it certainly could theoretically happen. A team could pressure the other team down in 30 seconds.


Some big mega-zapping uber team attack that has weaknesses, but if not stopped can almost instantly wipe out an entire team and their Guild Lord.

What a cute strawman you have there! And it would have worked too, if it weren't for those pesky kids!

arredondo
28-08-2006, 04:17
It was once possible to gank the Guild Lord in record time. Arena.net put artificial defenses on him so it's now impossible to do until a certain amount of time has passed. We can conclude that Arena.net doesn't think it's good for the game's long term success to get quick wins that way.

The opposite is true as well I'll bet. If we see a "fix" that directly prevents turtle defense as a tactic in the future, we'll know that they also believe that it is unhealthy for the game.

David Holtzman
28-08-2006, 05:04
It was once possible to gank the Guild Lord in record time. Arena.net put artificial defenses on him so it's now impossible to do until a certain amount of time has passed. We can conclude that Arena.net doesn't think it's good for the game's long term success to get quick wins that way.

Grenths Balance ftw? That sort of ganking was indeed ridiculous and it did need to be stopped because it was overpowered. Turtling is not overpowered; there are reasonably counters. However I think the game would be better off if they followed the suggestions I have in the thread.


The opposite is true as well I'll bet. If we see a "fix" that directly prevents turtle defense as a tactic in the future, we'll know that they also believe that it is unhealthy for the game.

Well they can certainly believe whatever they like. I may just disagree and I think I can argue effectively as to my beliefs.

Zui
28-08-2006, 09:35
The purpose of the game is to win. Therefore you should play to win. If turtling is going to get you a win, why not turtle?

When you're competing for a potential $50,000 you certainly have a very large incentive to play to win, so let me ask you this, if you were iQ, and had to pick between a shot at big money, or looking cool for scrubs on Observer Mode, what would you pick?

Mr Dbest
28-08-2006, 10:29
The purpose of the game is to win. Therefore you should play to win. If turtling is going to get you a win, why not turtle?

When you're competing for a potential $50,000 you certainly have a very large incentive to play to win, so let me ask you this, if you were iQ, and had to pick between a shot at big money, or looking cool for scrubs on Observer Mode, what would you pick?

I totally agree with the tactic, because, as Zui and previous others stated, their is money at stake, and you have to play to win....They were in a tournament, and they played to Evil's weakness....Evil was just stupid IMO for not changing up their build when it proved ineffective versus the turtling....

But as Holtzman and others brought up, it's affect on the Ladder is what should be the most pressing issue, such as will most teams adopt this turtling style of play, or will ANet come and put an update that will make turtling still viable, but make better incentives for engaging the enemy... =]

Servant of Kali
28-08-2006, 13:08
Ok so let me get this straight:

Arredondo says that turtling is bad because there's no fight.
TLLOTS says that no-turtling means no fight as well, because Evil just dodges while assassins gank.

I hate to say it, but i dont see the difference. If we want engagement, where is Evil? How will their Assassins engage? Simply, they wont. They cant. The trick is to stall with the rest of the team, run around, while assassins do the job. On the other hand, the trick of iQ was to stall, run around the base, till Evil is forced to fully engage at VoD. What's the difference?

Except, i believe one can pick Warriors Hall and use a catapult to prevent turtling, right? Or did i miss something?


As for the "entertainment" argument.. i for one am bored when guild like Evil (or any other) uses same professions same builds for months. On the other hand, iQ used different strategies and different builds, and that's something i find entertaining. One map they turtle, the other map they rush the enemy base from the start!

severed
28-08-2006, 16:31
Evil's build does work decently in an 8vs8, but relying on mobility and stances for defense means that they can't protect nearby NPCs as well as more classical builds can. And they're of course very strong in a mobile ganking game.

iQ refused to play Evil's game and won because Evil chose not to adapt. Nothing wrong with that.

About turtling itself... I don't think it's an unbalanced strategy, in this case it was mostly Evil's fault that they lost to turtling. That said, I think it's safe to assume that Anet doesn't want turtling to become a prevalent strategy. Say what you will about scrubs on observer, but a competitive game that does not entertain is rather unlikely to succeed in the long run. The GW championship events are also about promotion, and packed crowds viewing supposedly high-end games that have a 30-minute foreplay before the real action starts is a nightmare to marketing, i bet.

arredondo
29-08-2006, 06:41
^^^^ That's a man who gets it. It's not just about the participants and the prize. The action has to be appealing or in the long run GW:PvP fails as a "spectator sport". Everything Arena.net does publicly is for marketing the game to get more players (and hang on to the ones they have). Turtling for 30 mins. achieves the exact opposite.

However I'll once again emphasize that if I were in iQ's position and thought that turtling would work to win, I'd do the exact same thing.

deya
07-09-2006, 09:42
They did the right thing. The fact is, no1 likes to watch a team sit passively in base for 30 minutes, that's just... bull****. GW shouldn't be like that, it's not iQ's fault and they abused it for real money (anyone would do it). This should be fixed by devs.

Wuzzman
16-09-2006, 15:23
GW, for limiting the number of moves you can take in. If you want to be effective in all situations you end up effective in none. That's a game design flaw more than a player flaw and it's one you only will see in this sort of game. I'll give you an example:

If you've read sirlin, you know about his "low-strong" scenario. He did basically exactly what iQ did in principle. He created a brick wall and forced his opponent to try and pass it before a real "normal' fight could begin. In both cases it was an excellent move. But here's the difference: in Street Fighter you always have the tools you need available. That means that if the opponent adopts a strategy of focusing the game completely on one aspect, you have a chance to try and stop that. In GW, you may not necessarily have that chance because you may not have gone in with the right skills. The tools needed to win the scenario may simply not exist for you. That's degenerative gameplay.



Other strats viable = very good. Creating a strat that is physically impossible to counter with the moves you brought in = bad. It's bad because it makes the game revolve around bringing the right moves more than playing them correctly. At the high end, if that is what it comes to, then it turns out GW may very well be a degenerate game not worth truly competitive consideration. I'd hate to see that.

Of course, it's relatively easy to fix. You just need map mechanics that force variably encounters. GW is all about seting up encounters correctly and then applying skills to the right places. In order for this mechanism to function properly the game needs to force different kinds of encounters. It would be easy enough to reward a team with, say, 20% damage bonus for holding the stand 5 minutes. They could limit the time on this bonus to 5min as well, so it wouldn't remain constant throughout the match. In this way GW could make up for the lack of highly specific tooling needed to do a number of tasks including assaulting a turtle. It also offers a significant reward for utilizing various facets of the map and a serious disincentive to ignore them.

The problem with not bring the right tools comes with not having the right idea. Evil essentially gimped itself of any possibility to counter a team that does the opposite ofwhat Evil wanted them to do, which was chase them around the flagstand. That was primarily Evil's fault by making a build that so specialized it breaks. Evil chose to not bring the right tools for a regular match.