Cheap tactics in competitive games

[frobalt]

This is something I've always generally wondered: Why is it people go rabid at players that use a cheap tactic in that particular game?

This could be anything from using certain guns (usually rocket launchers) or certain units (I've heard about an early game tactic in Starcraft that's cheap) to basically anything that people see as making the game easy.

I understand why some people find it annoying, as they feel the person doesn't have any skill if they beat them with that strategy, but at the end of the day that's just their egos getting bruised - They got beat by someone that uses the 'best' strategy. After all, if a certain gun makes it easier to kill people in a game where the objective is to kill people, surely it makes more sense to use that gun than to not use it?


In fact, I remember during a game of Battlefield 3 team death match, on an urban map, I was killed by someone sniping from a window, so respawned as an engineer. I couldn't (easily) get close to him, so the most logical thing for me to do was shoot a rocket launcher at the building to destroy his cover. I got kicked after the second rocket launched. The last thing I saw was that part of the building collapse.

So seriously, why is this sort of strategy shunned? And why are other strategies seen as valid? (After all, surely it's a cheap strategy to snipe out of a window if you know people aren't allowed to destroy your cover).

 

[yuval152]

You didn't use cheap tactics, you killed a power hungry 13 years old admin.

 

[krazykidd]

No such thing as cheap tactics , IF the game is properly balanced . Something is only cheap of the developpers didn't design their game properly . Some tactics are annoying yes . But if it's in the game it's fair play .

 

[Nouw]

Eh it's a case-by-case thing really. What you did, however, was perfectly acceptable, especially in a game that's advertised to have destructible buildings.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

There are two schools of thought on this. The "pro" attitude is that you always play to win and use any advantage you can get and that anyone who complains about imbalance or unfair tactics is a scrub. The other opinion is that if a game is obviously broken, whole worlds of great possibilities off limits because the devs fucked up, then you set house rules and fix the game yourselves that way.

 

[Dandark]

If the game is well balanced then it is usaully fine provided you are playing competitivly. You sometimes get weapons that are way better than everything else and so may get annoyed if you wanted to use other weapons(Such as Halo 3 and every weapon that wasn't a power weapon or BR).

Some games pull this off well though. I think of League of legends being pretty well balanced, you can alway's be countered somehow, there isn't some tactic you can do to make you undefeatable. You get people complaining about certain champs being OP but it's alright most of the time.

A newish champion was added called Darius who many claimed broke the game but once people actually learned how to fight him, the complaints have died down a bit.


What I would consider valid complaints are "easy" characters/weapons. To use my example of League of legends again, many people get really annoyed by Blitzcrank. He is generally played as a support, he has a grab move where he shoots his arm out and grabs the first thing it hits then pulls it back to him, he can then knock them up and silence them while his lane partner pounds on them.
He is not an OP champ as you can dodge these grabs pretty easily but he is however pretty damn easy to play, he only has to land one grab and he has some of the best zoning capablity in the game. He is the most frustrating enemy for me and many others to face.

I can easily understand people getting upset and calling him broken or OP but I wouldn't say that. That said in a competitive environment it shouldn't really matter most of the time.

 

[Vegosiux]

The problem arises, as was said, when the game isn't properly balanced; if one approach is clearly superior to all others when it comes to winning potential, then that's bad. Variety is the spice of life after all, and it gets really boring realy fast if you're limited to one (or a handful among dozens) of strategies to have a fighting chance.

What I do like, however, is unconventional setups (that again often get called "cheap"). Nothing better than confusing your opponent with something he didn't see coming - now, of course, it doesn't always work. Unconvetntional tactics are unconventional for a reason, after all...

 

[Aeshi]

If it's 'cheap' but it works, it isn't cheap.

 

[Terrible Opinions]

A 6pool (the fastest possible attack, not counting worker rushes) in Starcraft 2 is not "cheap".

A 6pool in Starcraft 2 that includes rapidly pausing and unpausing the game while your opponent is trying to micromanage his workers? That's pretty fuckin' cheap.

 

[BaronUberstein]

Sounds like you came across a sniper that didn't fire-and-move and was a sore loser about it.

 

[Kingpopadopalus]

There are two schools of thought on this. The "pro" attitude is that you always play to win and use any advantage you can get and that anyone who complains about imbalance or unfair tactics is a scrub. The other opinion is that if a game is obviously broken, whole worlds of great possibilities off limits because the devs fucked up, then you set house rules and fix the game yourselves that way.

So house rules is CoD MLG?

 

[Mid Boss]

I use to play Supreme Commander online against other people. Until, 3 times out of 4, the matches just turned out to be who can start spamming nuclear missiles first and had nothing to do with armies.

My own cheap tactic was to just spam Soul Rippers. Send 20 of those at them and, commonly, they'd rage quit almost immediately and as soon as one team member quits his whole team quits.

Wasn't fun.

 

[FEichinger]

There are two schools of thought on this. The "pro" attitude is that you always play to win and use any advantage you can get and that anyone who complains about imbalance or unfair tactics is a scrub. The other opinion is that if a game is obviously broken, whole worlds of great possibilities off limits because the devs fucked up, then you set house rules and fix the game yourselves that way.

This describes it best. Sure as hell using the best way to play the current state of the game is fully fine. However, if the game is unnecessarily biased in favor of whoever uses this particular tactic over any other (as in: There is no other strategy even remotely as effective), it goes overboard and you're well in your right to call it a "cheap tactic".

 

[TheRussian]

Bunnyhopping.
Most games don't penalize your speed when you jump and land, and even games that do, like BF3 and CS:GO, let you avoid most enemy fire by jumping all the time.

I got kicked after the second rocket launched.

That sounds like a typical no-explosives server. I usually stay away from those.

 

[Lopende Paddo]

i agree with you except in one case... the AWP. nothing sucks more than entering a CS game with the opposite team awp camping... that gun is overpowered...