Game winning strategies
Alright guys, time to share. What are the most effective ctf game winning strategies for tribes 2, and why? Include number of players required, loadouts, vehicles, individual roles and possible counter strategies. One of the reasons I love Tribes 2 so much is because it's like a super evolved game of rock/paper/scissors.
May as well say the best strategy to win is to grab their flag and cap it....You aren't talking about a strategy...Base raping is part of the game its HOW it gets done that is part of a strategy.
I agree, the strategy is indeed the how and not the what. Analogous to the contrary, going to work is arriving there on time rather than the route you took to get there. Wildcard, thank you for getting our participants back on track. Please keep this in mind when detailing the strategies that you all have found to work.
2 mid(escorts carrier or retreives flag)
1 swing player
Though you can't get more complex then that without knowing a map and what you will be facing. I will say though most people underestimate the role of the deployer in winning a map. A good/smart deployer can certainly make a HUGE difference.
Why no bomber bro? I have found them to be a major suppressive factor.
2 mid(escorts carrier or retreives flag)
1 swing player
This is of course assuming they aren't absolutely terrible players in heavy armor, but if you're talking about game winning strategies, it's best to assume that.
Its really one of the reasons I quit the game...classic in my eyes was a huge step back for the tribes series. Base opened up so many gameplay options and then classic shut the door on most of it. Saddest part in my eyes was the shrike being reduced to ramming duty....its capable of SO much more, but the changes in classic make it so only a VERY few could do it.
I could go on and on about this subject but I'll stop now before i bore ya.
and to dudebot...I wish(ignoring the 4 shrike per team rule), but thats what we have aerial dogfight for. Now if someone would just get a server of it up.
According to a random weapon stat sheet that I picked up on a random website somewhere that I can't remember:
The bomber bombs do 3,300 hit points to all types of armor, ammunition is unlimited, .84 seconds to reload, and does 1,100 damage to base assets, 30 meter blast radius, is more difficult to stop than a mortar chucking heavy(but I would say on par against 3), and don't forget that the tail gunner can in fact be firing mortar with each approach.
The fusion mortar on the other hand does 1,300 damage to scout, 1,000 damage to assault, and 700 damage to heavy, is less accurate, takes 2.8 seconds to reload, and has a 19 meter blast radius.
Based on these statistics, the bomber bombs have a clear advantage over the fusion mortar. Even if we multiply the mortar's stats by 3 in damage, divide by 3 in reload time and multiply by 3 in everything else, superiority is still unquestionably awarded to the bomber, when the tailgunner's arsenal is taken into consideration. I do question the credibility of these stats, however.
Another way to look at this is... a bomber can take out 3 heavies with 3 bombs, but 3 heavies may not necessarily be able to destroy 1 bomber when piloted correctly and when accompanied by a tailgunner who knows what he's doing.
From a practical stand point, I do agree that 3 heavies is a lot to give up in a 12 man initial strategy, but in 16 on 16 and up, the bomber may be valuable enough to make such a sacrifice.
You're not boring me at all bro. I will take your word for the effectiveness of vehicles in classic, as I have never played a competition, and so have no experience of and have never witnessed the effectiveness of vehicles beyond their use in a pickup game.
p.s. sorry about the triple post, major bad, i know.
Lets look at it in a real situation. A single run. 1 bomber with 3 people in it and a heavy in tail dropping morts. And also 3 heavies doing their thing:
The bomber would coming in assuming there are no shrikes until he gets to their base. He drops his bombs in a line. Everyone on the ground shoots missiles and the tailgunner counters with flares. They get past the base and the tailgunner shoots a mortar(inaccurately I might add its hard to fire from a moving vehicle like that), but has to switch to his missile launcher because a shrike is on them now. The shrike toys with them till they are a good distance from his base and then destroys the bomber....3 people stranded in the middle of nowhere and the shrike flies off laughing...1 guy countered 3.
Now lets look at the three heavies. The three heavies all have different routes to the enemy base and as they get close they stop on a nearby hilltop. They spam their mortars and missiles on all assets they can see. At this point one or more of the ld might or might not going to engage the ho. This pulling of the ld gives the capper room to move in and grab. The HO seeing the ld coming(or running out of ammo) starts his ski down the hill and drives into the enemy base pulling out his disc/grenade launcher/plasma and goes to town on the base till he is killed.
GREAT SCENARIO! I see exactly what you mean, thank you for your knowledge! It's interactions like these that makes us all better players, and it shows when we are put in similar situations.
Is there any way for the bomber to survive the shrike attack, short of close air support from another shrike? If the answer is no, then I would completely agree with you both that a bomber, and a shrike covering it would be a total waste in a 12 on 12 game, as 33% of your players would be tied up in bombing!
That being said though I did have some success fighting shrikes as a gunner in a bomber early in base. Its should be noted that it took an EXTREME amount of skill and coordination between pilot and gunner, but even then was not a sure thing. Though again this was in base...classic is a different beast.
Awesome, and no I don't think you're an elitist prick : ) The only way to gauge any of this is to compare it to our own experience. If a 3 HO is more effective based on experience even if something else looks good on paper, then the 3 HO is the strategy of choice for the winning tribe! I respect your experience and agree!
Considering the wealth of Tribes 2 competitive knowledge and experience please do not consider this to be a debate over better strategies, consider it as a resource for those who are new to the game, or looking to better their own personal strategies.
Thank you for the civil debate! You guys rock!
After awhile you will learn where to aim without them. Now thats old school....who remembers the beacon suicide runs? hehe.
Oh and you can fire missiles at those beacons too...even if you could hit the item otherwise you can with a beacon on it.
Awesome tip Wildcard! Beacons have 2 modes, location mode and targeting mode, simply hitting h while you look at it will switch it back and forth between the 2 modes.
Some great places to put beacons in targeting mode are on the bottoms of vehicle stations in maps where the vehicle station is raised up on a platform. Little things like this can accumulate to decide the outcome of games.
Youve got 4 roles
I usually find one of them (or more) is being completely ignored on my team and try to fill that in. The team that carries all 4 of these better than the other one will win. Often you will find a team of 20 and not one of them is serious guarding the flag. Or a team of 15 and no one is capping. Kinda silly.
In conjunction with the strategy outline above is the communication support built into Tribes 2. Being aware of where the weaknesses are and being aware of when there is a weakness in your own defense is paramount in winning a serious game. Also, acting on those weaknesses, don't be the guy who sits at the vehicle pad yelling for a repair. Be the guy who does it.
I AM an elitest prick
there are a couple uses for bombers. HO are generally more effective, but I can think of 3 circumstances when bombers have been used to at least decent effect:
1) during timing runs (usually with a medium grabber in a shriker, but also sometimes with speed capping). bombers cause a lot more destruction over a short period of time, and can completely clear and distract a large group of players, so if done properly, this can work out.
2) as a precursor to a subsequent rape. That is, it would have two passengers, both in medium shield, and they will bomb a certain area once (generally flag stand or mpb) and then hop out and rape. This is particularly used on slapdash.
3) when the opponents' gens are thoroughly owned/vpad is owned. It's often a forgone conclusion at this point, but it can cause a lot of damage without most players having the ability to do much to the bomber. It's pretty easy to disc a bomber to throw it off, but generally they're too busy getting owned by th 6-7 HO that are skiing around the flag to bother with a bomber 200 m above them.
(note: in all above examples, there are typically only 2 people in the bomber. I think most teams realized it was kind of a waste to have a third person taking up a relatively useless tailgunner spot, unless they wanted to rape with 3 instead of 2).
I can think of useful applications of every vehicle except the havoc, which is just useless. I'm also a wealth of information about any and all tactics used in t2 (as well as how they evolved etc, basic and advanced strategies), so if anybody is curious about something, they can ask me.
as an aside, in real competition, offense is much more important than defense (much like in american football), and you can have an entirely mediocre team in almost every way, but have an excellent and deep group of HO, and still do very well. If you're talking about pubs, generally going HO is the most effective way to spend your time if you're not sure what you should do, as the principle still stands. HO is also one of the easier positions to learn, so it's a win-win
And that's what base competition really was, it was an ELF/timed cap grabfest with tons of shrikes. The ld could shut down any capper by just holding down the left mouse button. Almost every map available in competition at that time was not a cluster-style map; they had bases somewhat or very far apart, and usually had vpads. The strategy on numerous maps was to have your standard farmer, hd, ld (with elf guns of course), good shrikers roaming around, and then either with mortar spam or bombers, time a shrike grab with your capper, who was either escorted by lights or by meeting a grav cycle (a la +GoD+ on sanctuary). Rinse and repeat. The success rate of these attacks was very low, so it ended it boring, monotonous, low scoring games.
As to your point about vehicles, I have to say classic has vehicles pretty well balanced and still very useful. Most teams went out of their way to have at least one high quality shriker on their team, because they were extremely useful for a number of different roles (mostly for helping shut down HO trains, but they certainly were great for escorting or e-grabbing in a pinch). Shrikes were just insanely overpowered in base: they flew insanely fast relative to everything, they completely protected the person inside, they were absurdly effective at killing HO, lights, base turrets/sensors, and mpbs. On top of all that, they were still generally used the same way they were used in classic, just to more effect. In classic at least they have to deal with cappers being able to move more quickly and mine disc them if they go for a ram. However I'm not sure what you mean when you say they were capable of so much more in base. Their potential was pretty well tapped into, and almost all functions they were used for in base they were also used for in classic.
As for your comment about shrikes being overpowered in base I would have to disagree. A few pilots and myself worked with the devs to ensure balance in the gameplay of the shrike. I don't know if you recall when a shrike had straight firing shots that went on forever....Now THAT was overpowered. I'm happy with the balance that was eventually reached in base, but you seem to miss the concept that the best counter for a shrike was another shrike. It led to a battle for the air as well as the ground.
Base was a step forward in my eyes...It required a good deal more teamplay, coordination, and each run you made mattered. Classic was just gear up, run, die, and repeat in an endless zerg style. Dying didn't mean nearly as much because if you could ski at all the entire map could be crossed in seconds.
Can I see where the people who wanted classic were coming from? Sure they wanted a faster game that reminded them more of tribes 1. Theres always going to be folks who would rather have a new version of the same old stuff and hey if thats their cup of tea all the power to them. That won't change the fact that base was a very solid game despite your bias. Heck we get you didn't like base but to make untrue or exaggerated statements is unneeded.