To Rush or not to Rush? Does Rushing put u off RM?

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

That's the topic!

 

Although I play alot of RM (Random Map) games, I do hate the 'rush' strategy of the game.

 

Yes, you could agree not to rush before playing but unless they are friends you are playing with, you will always find someone who will attack early.

 

When and if they make a SWGB 2, rushing SHOULD be taken out of the game all together.

 

Why? Well, more people would play, it would also give people a chance to battle with the better weapons and have longer more enjoyable battles, something you can only achieve if you are a good player at this game.

 

Let's here your views and this is something I might consider passing onto Garry and LA for future reference.

 

DMUK

[simwiz2]

I think that rushing, while a viable strategy, should not be the only viable strategy. IMO it is a bit too easy to rush in GB. However, instead of taking out rushing, it should be made harder by having defenses be stronger in the early game compared to attack units (as opposed to the current system where defenses are much stronger in the lategame). Completely removing rushing would make the game boring to all but beginners. If there are not early attacks, soon people will be having build orders all the way to late T3, and the game would play the exact same all the way to T3.

[lukeiamyourdad]

It's true that rushing is too strong, if you know what I mean. A good rush can end the game way too early which is not more fun than a really long game.

Removing rushing won't affect that much. It will be boring. I do agree with simwiz to maybe make defensive structure a bit stronger. However, my idea is to make rushing an option, like everyone has an allied stance for some time and after that time it changes to enemy.

[Sithmaster_821]

Rushing is a wide topic. I think rushing that resembles FLUSHes in AoK is pretty stupid, but, if you define rushing as attacking in t2 or early t3, i say no. The point of RTS's is to fight, so why wait until half of the techs have passed? And, unlike the aforementioned game, there are many different rushes (i.e. strike rush, trooper rush, mountie rush, air rush, etc.). Rushing should never be the only viable option, and it shouldnt be the best option either. Another thing is that rushes shouldnt win the game for the player, something that happens all too often in SWGB. The point of rushing is to gain the upper hand, not to wipe your opponent out before t3. In a game amongst equals, a rush should never be decisive, and the attacking should go back and forth even with the rush. Ive turned back many a rush, and lost many a rush on the zone. The problem, however, with games [cough]RoN[/cough] that are so scared of advocating early attacking, that the game is plaqued with over booms and passive turtles, strats that are more detrimental to an RTS than rushing.

 

Here's a list of stats that should be equaling viable in an RTS:

Rushing- Attacking early on to gain the upper hand and hamper the enemy's economy Principle buildings: Troop centers

Booming-Concentrating on econ almost solely until a bit into the game, and using your superior coffers to fend of and beat the enemy Princilple buildings: Farm

Pushing-Slower, steadier form of the rush, you concentrate equally on econ and military as you build town centers and other building all over the map, essentially starving your enemy of resorces. Principle buildings: Command Centers

Aggresive turtling-Wall off more than half the map and build towers, while concentrating on building an amry and strong economy with which to harrass the enemy Principle buildings: Walls and towers

 

And, of course any combination of the foru. NOTE: All of the above rely on attacking anywhere between middle t2 and middle to late t3

 

The extremes of these strats, though (uber-rushing, over booming, massive tc expansion, and passive turtling) are no fun and should be discouraged

[bobafett765]

Although I think rushing is a rather cheap way of winning, I don't think it should be gotten rid of. If your opponent decides to be cheap and rush, then it's just more of a challenge to see if you can defend against an attack early in the game. I consider any attack during TL1 a rush, BTW. I don't think defenses should be better earlier in the game. Weak defenses is the point. As you advance in TLs, you advance in strength and power. I don't think that light walls or light turrets should be made any better. Rushing adds another flavor to the game and makes it more of a challenge, even if it is a pretty damn cheap way to win.

[clonedjedi]

I think there should be a new option in the game like u have a normal rm which should ban rushing with like an invisible undeafeatable shield or something and the player gets to decide the time when the shield powers down (selfdestruct).

 

the other one a rush rm should have like u can attack whenever u like.

[Darth Windu]

The solution to this is rather simple. All LA needs to do, if they make a SW:GB2, is put in the same sort of anti-rush option in RoN.

 

This way, if people wanted to rush, it would be allowed, but then if people didnt want to rush, that would also be possible without anyone breaking the 'no-rush' rule.

[Sithmaster_821]

Or they could just use the honor code like all other games:)

 

Only >25% of the people opt for no rushing, and they play at a level where very few people can rush. RoN is different because the game is geared for non-rush, take-forever games.

 

I agree with boba, t1 rushes are cheap. t1 is the time where you set up your economy and structure, not fighting. Even super-early t2 rushes are cheap (like FLUSHes), hwere the person advances at an insane t2 time just to end the game in like 10 minutes.

[AU_Andy_Ewok]

To do this you have to ask your self what exactly is rushing. Is rushing attacking in T1 & t2? is attacking T3 still a rush? Is it still a rush if you stay in T2 for an hour and attack with 250 troopers? Is it a rush when you get to t4 in 20 mins? or is it a rush when someone isn't ready?

 

I can see a few solutions

 

1 - You tick a button when you are ready. Problems, you could stay in T4 untill you have 250 Jedi Masters or 250 AT-AT's.

 

2 - There could be a timer untill you are able to attack. Say, no attack for thirty minutes. Problems, good players are still gonna attack at 30 mins with much bigger + better army so not gonna be able to use the best units.

 

3 - No attacking units in t1, t2 or t3. This would suck.

 

4 - Make turrets super amazing. Problems - Turret rush anyone?

 

5 - Make a new game type simular to RM. Where you start with loads of all the resources and starting in T4. I would call it something silly like deathmatch, yeah what an idea, i'll send that one too Lucas Arts.

[angbandadmin]

my best friend did that to me last night and boy was i pissed!

haha.

 

i think they should just draw out the diffrences in the CIV's more.

 

making the empires buildings much stronger to begin with

making the rebs buildins weaker at first

 

ect ect.

 

if you have a reb group that builds up faster because of food production they can attack faster, but that should be offset by other factors.

[Darth Windu]

sith - a code of honour is of little help when dealing with the dishorourable.

 

As i said, the option i explained would give the host the choice of whether they want the anti-rush option on or not. It could also work as an incentive to new players to play on-line without the fear of rushing in the beginning.

[Young David]

Back in the ol' days of GB.com we had discussions like this. I was against rushing ... but as I realized, Rushing is still part of the game.

 

If you expect a rush, counter it! Every strat can be countered. Rushing too.

 

You can say that you don't like things like the pumel drop or the tower rush. But they only reason you say that is because you cannot counter them. Practice in countering them then.

 

Every stratagy is allowed. There is no code, the only rule is to win. The only things that are not permitted are trainers and cheats. Everthing that the game allows can be done.

 

When you're a commander of an army and you have to take over a base you don't think things like: 'Gee, I better not attack yet, my enemy might still be building'. No, you think: 'My enemy is still building. Now is the time to attack.'

 

It's not like I'm good at countering rushes ... but my ISP isn't good enough anymore to play online (well I can play Fyrad32 on-line ). But the bottomline is, when you win, you defeated the enemy. When you lost, you've let the enemy beat you.

[Sithmaster_821]

Windu, the majority of pople who play with rush-guards are, as you said, newer to the game, therefore have little chance of playing a player even capable of performing a rush, and even less of a chance of seeing one done on them. And if they are new to the game and are rushed, the chances are that they would have lost the game anyway, rush-guards or no rush guards.

 

Ewok is right. A rush can happen in t1, but it can also happen with a person who does a 20 min t4 and hits the unsuspecting person with cannons and repeaters. And what about the differences between rushing and starting fighting early? One is usually indicative of fast tech times and a concentration on military, while the other is indicative of moderate advance times and concentration on military. One usually results in a quick win, the other usually leads to a fun and moderately timed game. Attack timelimits may stop a t2 rush, but then people will just do a fast t4 and rush then. And attack timelimits delete one of the most fun options in a game. If you look it wasnt attacking that separates a rush from starting the fighting early, it was tech times. And the best way to deflect fast tech times is to do what LA and ES are ALREADY doing, having required buildings and an expensive and long to research tech between you and the next tech level.

[Darth Windu]

sith - i really dont care about the ethics of rushing, thats not why im here. As i said, the suggested option of a rush-guard as you call it might be enought incentive to bring new players online. It might work, it might not.

 

If it does work, there will be greater playing variety online with more players.

 

If it doesnt work, its an option so all you have to do is keep it turned off.

[Sithmaster_821]

The people who would be coming online as new players would NEVER see a rush(unless its a newb bash, but they would lose anyway) since practically everyone on that level of playing doesnt rush and plays defence oriented maps. I konw ive been there.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Sith- Not always. I see rushes quite often.

 

Windu-No rush won't bring more players online. You can see rushes but it doesn't stop players from coming online. This discussion is about reducing the effect of a rush.

 

An early rush can knock out your econ and let your enemy litterally win the game with one single early rush.It doesn't matter what kind of rush, it's a too easy way to win.

[simwiz2]

Sith, do you think all options are bad? I am trying to understand your argument against an OPTION that will not affect those who do not enable it. A no rush OPTION will allow n00bs such as Windu to play GB2 without being rushed. No one actually follows an honor code. If it is in one's best interests victory-wise to rush, they will rush, whether no rushes was agreed on or not.

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

I think being able to have the option to turn on or off the ability to rush is a good one.

 

Rushing focuses mainly around the experts and where are they now - all playing Age Of Mythology or Warcraft 3. Where newbies play experts through no fault of their own and die inside 10 minutes puts them off.

 

Whats worse is when experts hide as newbies (some do trust me) just to bash new players. This is one of the key reasons why scenarios have taken off in such a big way but even in scenarios, some hosts cheat like crazy.

 

RM games are fun. It's great to have battles and especially large long battles where both sides have had chances to lose but make a comeback.

 

Giving players a chance to turn off the 'forward build' option would be cool. Unless you are building non Military structures such as proctors or farms unless people hit a certain Tech level then they can.

 

DMUK

[Sithmaster_821]

Rushes are commonly misconcieved as quick game strategies. I have had games where both sides rushed, and they lasted well >1 hr. Very few of my rook or inter games ended that late. Another misconception is that rushing is for experts. Actually, most inter and good player games have rushes too. I rush and im defintely not an expert. Same with simwiz. You say rushing only applies to a select few iniiduals, but an option would apply to less.

 

Luke, when i was playing good rook games and trying to learn how to rush, i was called a cheating rook basher. And i attacked after the 20 minute mark too. If some one beat you handily with only a rush, then they (or you) arent playing the level people. I can hold off a rush by a player of my caliber, but die easily to FLUSHes ect.

[AU_Andy_Ewok]

If there was a no rush option people would be eternal rooks. Then when a tournament comes along how will a player ever have a chance?

 

If i can beat someone in first 20 minutes then the chances our i'll be able to beat there super T4 army. What's the point in wasting everyones time?

[Sithmaster_821]

Exactly

[lukeiamyourdad]

Sith-No they can't beat me with a single rush. A rush can too easily knock out your econ which as a result, a few minutes later he can come back and crush what's left. I didn't meant that a rush could knock me out completely before 20 min.

[Sithmaster_821]

Depending on the interval between wave one and wave two, your econ should be able bounce back enough to at least stall the second attack long enough to pass the 40 or so minute mark

[AlliedCommander]

I think rushing should be allowed, but maybe with a peace-time option.

 

But i don't like how my opponents seem to think they must always rush. I like late-game strats, where I rule the units killed/units lost ratio through large-scale tactics.

[Darth Windu]

Andy - how would having an OPTION make people eternal rookie's? The whole point of an OPTION is that you can use it if you want to, but you dont have to.