Do you change tactics depending on the opponent?

Knowing what to do where and when can flip a match. lio doesn't, do you?
15.9 %
(178 votes)
29.5 %
(329 votes)
37.8 %
(422 votes)
16.8 %
(188 votes)
Comments
81
no tax just hax
Love the explanation :D
:-------D
as long as your team plays as one[ TEAMPLAY ] you dont even need tactics :]
Only if you know a certain team's weakspots or where they always rush, but it's more like keeping an eye-out for that "way". Not really flipping around tactics ..
Tactics can always be improved but decent tactics should be able to rotate to deal with any attacks. Not sure if this applies as much in ET, but in rtcw without the self kill mentality its very useful.

attack is a different story, as the good teams have someone calling rushes, so theres lots of change.
Tactix smacktix
You can make tactics all you want, but the most important thing is that people know what to do themselves and what the people around them do. You need smart players who adapt the right way to others in all situations. It's also an advantage to be able to speak your native language, that way comms are much more efficient.
Where's the "null vote / care vote / don't play competetive" option, aight?
Abstain :O)
Parent
denied, added a don't play option
Parent
Re-play's tactic by using wildcard against SNB was kinda lame.
best tactic is teh own skillboost.
tactics are fucking overrated
on low level i agree
Parent
teamplay > aim > tactics, in general, but they're all important.
Parent
omg...i have to agree with Adacore :S
Parent
what's the differents between tactics and teamplay?
Parent
Are you serious, mister? If yes, go meet your doctor.
Parent
I am serious, make it clear to me.
Parent
tax -> static ways of behavior, planned
teamplay -> dynamic ways of behavior, intuitive by the players (intelligence is good here) :)
Parent
Tactics is the way an attack/defence is build up, how you divide the classes, which positions are taken by who etc.
Teamplay is how good the team responds to each others actions and how they co-operate the tactics together, fill in the gaps of each other etc.
Parent
Well, I think it's stuck together.
Parent
Yes, the two are very influential on each other and only when thus stuck together, since usually you cant have one if you dont got the other. But still, the two have a very different meaning.
Parent
teamplay > tax > aim
Parent
Possibly true if you take 'no tactics at all' as the baseline, but that's not really appropriate in ET, where almost all maps have well established standard tactics. The actual variation, and thus advantage, that can be gained by having better tactics than the average in ET is pretty small.

Of course that ignores the interactions as well. Teams without good adaptive teamplay but with good tactics can actually play worse against an opponent without tactics than against one with solid tacs. It's basically the 'mix-effect': tactics are frequently based on the opponent doing predictable, coordinated things - if the opponent doesn't (because they're all ramboing around on their own, for example), then the tactics can break down.
Parent
you cant make order for real

I think aim is the most important because doesnt matter if you make tactics or the clan has teamplay without aim.

For example a good 1 week old aimer team can beat a half year old clan with a lot of teamplay.
Parent
only in the attacks
Most teams are as likely to do this vs really bad opponents as they are vs good. Against a team you know you're owning you tend to go for more audacious attacks, like a covert rush on radar.

Generally though, it just depends on how much you've seen the opponent play (either through playing against them or watching ettv). Unless you're blind you can't help but notice what works and what doesn't work against a team on a map and you'd be an idiot not to use that knowledge in game. Actively seeking it out and specific planning, though, I think is far less common.
when knowing what opponent's rifle/panzer/MG is always doing (many of em are doing the same things over and over again... zzzzz), it makes things easier. it feels pretty good when I know that the opponent knows what I know, but I know that he knows that I know it, so I make it a bit different and it makes us win some situation. as known as "metagame".
nice explanation ;)
Parent
nice explanation ;)
Parent
nice explanation ;)
Parent
Omg I actually understood that lol.
Parent
+1 for Adacore, it's clearly obvious like mAus that a big rush main on supply won't work against a team that is used to rush at first spawn with airstrikes, panzerfaust and grenades.

I don't gib against some teams because I know they don't have teamplay to revive themselves when needed.
Same tax always, same2me who is coming to get me I will pöwn he anywayZ
well, its like you got basicly core-tactics and switch positions in these tactics however the opponent acts against you or/and to fill out some weak points
what he said
Parent
Never
We own, or get owned (most of the time!)
only when there will be a decider we will eliminate/pick the maps thats suits us best vs them ( lotto or more stages )
when i play we dont need tactics,we are sure we win
Don't play anymore. But before I've never changed tactics depending on the opponent, probably because in the time I made tactics there weren't so many GTV matches so you couldn't check the opponent's tactics.
I remember focusing on some special parts in important games. Nothing big but some teams had really good rifles who focused on the same move over and over.
Only for strong opponents (relative)
I am tactics.
you'll get focused a lot
Parent
If i play against low skills like i mostly do, my tax are aim only. If against low+ or higher, it's hax on.
we never ever changed tactics, only adopted to some players that are easy to predict (hi winghaven and gifty! :D)
whats predictable bout gifty?
Parent
tactics....

image: belly-1
haha great one
Parent
where is the "tactics are lame" option?
half of the posts in this thread are discussing STRATEGY not tactics

you fucking morons
By definition ET squads are too small for strategy. Strategy is setting the objectives you want to achieve, tactics is the specific plan of how to achieve each one. The objectives have already been set for us by the mapmakers, removing any strategic planning - all we have to do is tactics.
Parent
I'd say it's more like a plan of action, and tactics are realizing that plan.

For instance you force a team to go main so you can focus them more in your crossfire. The tactic would be throwing down an artillery in the alternate route and either forcing the oppo main or delaying them. An alternate tactic would be to place mines there to force the oppo towards main. The strategy is still the same however.
Parent
Depends what you mean by Tactics

if you mean general positioning, then never - just the rotation of positions will change - not specifically to the opponent, but specifically to what they are doing. Obviously some opponents do something more than others so it would just seem like a team is defending that route/side more but really they aren't.

this is assuming the team in question is adept at strategy and tactics, not just the noob push and kill mentality all the time. ;)
Defence tactics are changed far less than attack, I agree. The only times I can think of changing defence tactics significantly based on the opponent was on oasis back when the mortar was allowed - if the other team used a mortar we took completely different positions to what we did if they didn't. It's true to a certain extent on most maps now with teams that have good rifles - certain positions are deathtraps against certain specific rifles.

More rarely it can be true just for normal nades, or even trickjumps - if you're playing against Xpaz, Raveneye and Toxic you sure as hell make sure you're in position to watch for the east tower jump on supply, whereas against most other teams you wouldn't give it a second thought.
Parent
but the rifle shots arent team tactics, its individual positioning. No good team has positions 'set in stone' its more of a Zonal marking strat and its down to the player to make the decision to be in a more safe area of that Zone if the other team has a good rifle.

knowing that certain players do this jump wouldnt make a team change their tactics, they would just make whoever was on east aware that they do it often and to be more aware of it (in general I guess they would still have to cover it, just not a priority) you wouldnt for instance change the entire defence due to that specific trickjump.

Attack on the other hand has to be changeable, its just the way it is - if teams dont mix it up from time to time then things will not go well for them too long.
Parent
Again, agreed in general - I can think of a few very specific occasions when my teams have specifically adapted tactics and actually changed positions (rather than moving to a different spot to cover the same 'zone'). Normally that's come after weeks of prac where a certain def has worked perfectly against most teams, but always fail against one specific opponent for some reason.
Parent
yup understandable :) dont want any team breaking through - but it was probably more down to their attacks then your defence (if you were holding other teams) or down to their general ability as a team being far higher than other opponents.

in the near 4 years Ive been with the same team, we still have fairly similar defence tactics now than what we did then on all maps except one where I think we've changed it a good 4 or 5 times - if this is down to the map or us who knows.

On most other maps we have 2-3 changeable ones depending on the spawn (RtCW defences are much more spawn based than ET, thats why most ET players cant adapt to RtCW) rather than the opponent dictating the defence, their spawn time differential does - this cant happen on attack too on certain maps.
Parent
Spawn time differentials on defence only really make a difference in how aggressively you can push out before spawn for an ET defence. Attacks are different though - at least in the high level teams the attacks we ran were entirely based on spawn differentials. Getting to certain places at times when your opponent can't afford to die (is on long spawn) - without having to wait around or delay because the timing is off and lose the element of surprise - is extremely powerful.
Parent
yup indeed :)

works both ways in RtCW though, as generally the push and /kill method does not work at all on defence perhaps except for the panzer and a lt (fop) whereas in ET its a general strategy used throughout the game on pretty much every map.
Parent
On RtCW the spawns are generally easier to spawnkill and the spawnkilling weapons (panzer and airstrike) are more powerful (if I remember right it's only half a charge for airstrike? Or is that different in comp play?)
Parent
yea half a charge for strike. and charge resets on spawn for all classes - a smart LT or Panzer can dominate one route of the map no problem.
Parent
where's the "no tactics" option?
6 minutes goldrush vs. polar at cpc2 springs to mind... altered tactics ftw
Yeah our alternate 2 man front / 4 man back defence worked out!
Parent
we once changed whole back attack plan to the 6-guys main rush cuz we knew you have squall in the back, and it worked!
Parent
you should have the option of - Strat?

People still use placed strats?
Back to top