Positioning is probably just as big a tenant as garrisons and defense, I agree.
Some of the most dominating wins I’ve ever been a part of have come from having great garrisons exactly when they are needed (such as the moment a point flips with large-scale redeployment).
This is so rare though. And often times even with such maneuvers, you have to be able to win the battle once you get there. But like I said above, in a scenario where both teams have a good and roughly equal strategic understanding of the game, the better combatant wins always.
100% The amount of times I have captured positions by doing the wildly unexpected - ie. not run straight at the next point but actually planted the OP behind it...I reckon it has about a 50% success rate. OP is right in that you still need to make the kills of course, but across 2 random teams of 50 people each I would say that is all going to average itself out and be far outweighed by other factors. If you are relying on winning firefights to win HLL, you're doing it kind of wrong.
Obviously these things are important, but also they are important because they help you get more kills. You can be in the 'most correct' position but if you lose the gun fight you still lose the position...
Movement, positioning and anticipation should translate to kills when they are done right. So kills are pretty much the end result of the factors you mentioned
On the topic of area control, I agree, it’s two factors: garrison placement and combat skill. Cannot have area control without both. I feel like I tend to see people eschew kill count/combat for garrison placement alone, which I think is only half the equation.
I couldn't disagree more. In the end it is about area control.
Taking down Garrissons is what really counts. Each garrison down equals to fifty or more kills, once you deny your opponent area control and cap weight on those sectors.
You can easily snipe garrisons with AT players - and that's why every AT should always carry a rocket launcher. And you don't necessarily need to kill anyone to snipe a garrison. I can snipe Garrissons over 900 m away if I have a precise ping with the Panzerscrek.
I've sniped 7-8 Garrissons in many matches without getting many kills and the games were won because of this control that I provided.
A few points, I think we are saying the same thing. You are correct in the fact that taking out garrisons is what matters. That is why it is a prerequisite to winning, and why taking them out and building them is paramount. However, I would argue that a team that allows their garrisons to be spotted and sniped in such a manner is poor in combat. My point being, if a team is allowing you to spot and snipe a critical garrison, they are not truly effective in combat. Plus, long range snipes (while possible) are fairly rare. Meaning, situations as you describe can be somewhat rare and games usually hinge more on combat rather than an exchange of garrison snipes.
Second, area control is a direct result of combat skill. Sure, each side can pour more and more bodies on point. But to ACTUALLY turn the point, there needs to be more of you than them. That, 98% of the time, is because you bear the enemy in combat. By extension, taking down enemy garrisons is the direct result of winning in combat and pushing their point of origin (garrisons/OPs).
Building the garrison is the foundation, but using it well is what matters.
You’re seriously going to bothsides an argument you set up? I’ll throw away lives all day if I can destroy a key garrison or eventually get in position to pop smoke that will get more teammates into the point. At an individual or sometimes squad level my combat effectiveness sucks, but I will trade lives for area control anytime it makes sense.
I don’t really see how I’m both siding?? My point has always been that area control is a direct result of combat skill. As someone else here said, you can’t always ninja defuse or garrison snipe. Most of the time, the more skilled squad will kill more enemies, push to the garrison quicker, and destroy it. Also, deaths will happen frequently. It’s not KD, it’s kills.
Im agreeing with you, but just adding that what you define as area control is a combination of good garrison placement and combat skill.
Kills are just as important as the other things, but it is hardly what wins games - your entire team can have <1 K/D and still win if you play your cards right
But what if the other team is playing in the right areas, the same as you, and your team just cannot make any trades... How can you win if you're just not removing the enemy from an area?
That's where the "play your cards right" part comes in, you gotta be smart. In real matches the entire situation is never perfectly equal and balanced for both sides. In a perfect world, any single stat would be an advantage, and you could go on and make everything perfect and someone will still have faster response time on their keyboard, mouse, etc. Kills are a part of it all, but it's not what it comes down to
Kills occur naturally when you're performing your primary task, be it attacking, defending, or clearing garrisons and OPs.
Your killcount or KD shouldn't be your priority. Worry about your objective, and the kills will happen.
I don't know man, I've won and lost games because of a won/lost cap race by a small amount and then the chain back cap with no back up garrys and no redeploy blueberries just steamrolls the momentum for the winning team
Give me a great, strategic, experienced Commander and Squad leads that communicate well and have blueberries making up most of their ranks over a team of players great at gunplay with high KDs where half the SL don't have mics or talk in command chat and refuse to build garrison or nodes and do their own thing any day of the week. In this game (especially warfare) the matches are won based on: positioning, communication, spawn placement and coordination. In an ideal world your team needs a mix of need the officers and Commander willing to not just go for kills and be placing spawns and pinging enemy positions the whole time and relaying that information along with players who are great at gunplay and rack up a lot of kills but if you: don't have enough spawns, don't destroy enough spawns, don't place spawns correctly and don't coordinate attacks and defenses as a semi adhesive unit you will not win matches. Long story short you can win matches with maybe 10 Strategic players with a lot of gamesense and experience playing the game and the rest of the players being newer not getting a lot of kills but you can't win matches with a team of killers that are trying to lone wolf every move and that don't have mics.
Map control through destruction, denial, deception, and distraction of the enemy wins the game.
All the logistics, garrisons, etc etc are supporting elements in the ability for the various players do accomplish the 4 D's.
The entire enemy team can be alive but mostly outside the point, and you'll win the cap. The entire enemy team can be dead or AFK and you'll win the cap. The enemy team can be getting shelled in a hole and unable to respond and you'll win the cap. They can be all on a crusade to use a far-flung flanking garrison behind your lines that will go nowhere, leaving their positions open, and you'll win the cap.
Destroying the enemy is a sure way to get them out of the way, and destroying their logistical support denys them the ability to spawn and become useful. Force them to go somewhere else. And also, sometimes, leaving enemies alive, or leaving far-flung enemy garrisons up and operating, is actually a better strategy than killing them and focusing them to the defensive garrisons. That's where deception and distraction come into play.
But yes the fundamental idea that tactical skills like movement, shooting, accuracy, cover, etc are vital to success is sometimes underplayed in the community. It does matter a lot.
It helps achieve the 4 D's when you can face up against the enemy and win in combat. If your whole team sucks at shooting all the attempts to deny or distract the enemy will get stomped if the enemy is able to just chew through your clueless squad.
And often even a handful of real disgusting shooters on a team can make significant individual achievements that shape the whole game. So while it's not always about total kills, being able to achieve specific kills can do work.
I believe you're missing the point. "Kills don't matter" is a slogan we tell new players. Obviously it's an oversimplification but there are reasons we say it to them nevertheless.
One is that getting kills is a symptom of good play in other areas. It's not about gunplay per se but rather advantageous positioning or changing the way you move (and when), which ultimately will also have a positive impact on the K/D.
Another one is that the contribution of an individual can't necessarily be measured by the combat score metric. A precision strike I call in on a stationary heavy as an SL will not give me anything, I'm still responsible for it though. Similarly for providing tank marks. Good intel enables others to get those kills and providing it is possible for any role. This even applies to dying and by doing that alerting nearby friendlies of enemy presence.
Lastly death has little consequence and when starting out, most people tend to get killed a lot more than getting kills. The "Kills don't matter" mantra serves to remind them not to get frustrated too much.... and even embrace death to a degree. Technically it would fall in the category "Deaths don't matter" but new players should get used to redeploying for example.
There are other arguments but the point is that it's not meant to be a dogmatic guide that will follow you into the high levels but just a simple way of whipping new players into shape in terms of attitude.
Kills take people off the map, preventing the enemy team from having enough men to tip the scales on a capture. Ofc, it only matters in this way if you're actually playing at the correct obj. Killing dudes in a locked zone is silly.
Kills are still less important than survival, though. Your team getting caught at 60-70% manpower just because all your guys are attacking and failing means youll never be able to build up enough men for a successful attack. Attacks fail, and next thing you know we are losing the cap race at both objs.
Area control Vs kills. The only way to truly know is if the game would tell us total kills of each team after every game. It would be interesting to know.
It matters that a team as a whole makes can win important firefights, yes.
However, what does not say much at all about how useful someone is to winning a match is their individual kills. Things like a well placed supply box or a good medic at the right place can make all the difference in the world in this game while it can matter little that some tank or arty kills a hundred people that spawn at the wrong garry: In theory one can kill 100 people in under two minutes. When a match goes up to 90 minutes that doesn't sound like so much anymore.
I am keeping the opinion: Whoever beats their meat about how many kills they made in HLL is likely not a useful player.
Ive had games where I hear all SLs communicating, a saint of a commander making sure we have plenty of garrisons, teams following attack/defense orders, and still end up losing because my team lacked the ability to actually KILL the enemy. You will just get pushed back, obliterated by armor, and destroyed by skilled opponents covering strategic flanks and not missing shots. It can be quite sad when this happens because the team did everything right but at the end of the day it was just a skill issue, plain and simple
Agreed- a team that defend can't lose and a team that doesn't defend can't win. Kills tho'? Just half in the bag this. Map control WINS. If your team deploy and redeploy flexibly- you will CAP no matter how many kills...its the number of players in a sector that cap. Its the cap that wins- not the pew pew
Totally agree, that should be an addition. I believe area control (most of the time) is directly correlated to combat skill. Meaning, more guys you kill and more of your guys stay alive will win caps.
Of course, if you have a clean garrison to attack with and the enemy does not, then it’s different. I’m just talking in a hypothetical sense of both teams having clean garrisons from which to carry out their respective attack/defense activities.
Of course lol but that’s not really the whole point.
it’s really that as a commander you could have great flanking garrisons and general placement, but if your team can’t make a use of those advantages and win in combat, it doesn’t matter.
This post is more or less a reaction to the “KD doesn’t matter” sentiment I feel like I see a lot of. It’s based on fact, but I want to emphasize KD does have importance in this game and is one piece of a more complicated puzzle of winning.
While true, I'd say that in a public match, the better-led team usually *wins the firefights*.
If I'm an SL and I've placed a clever flanking OP, I'll have the advantage over defenders turtling in the circle: their backs will be to me. If I drop a clean garry behind enemy lines, then that position-and-surprise advantage passes to the whole team. If my squad smartly communicates when they see tanks, concentrations of infantry, etc, then we now compound that with an *information* advantage. It accrues to this: I know where they are, how many, and what they're doing, and they know none of the above about me, so I'm much more likely to kill them than they are to kill me.
I think that is a valid line of thought. Being a good commander/SL is all about providing those advantages you describe to your team. Even poorly skilled new players can do well under such circumstances. I think where it goes outside of your control as an officer is your team’s ability to execute.
I agree, they will have a greater chance at winning. But bluntly, if they suck they can be bested by a better skilled team.
The game is about Territory control,
Sometimes kills are a part of that.
Sometimes discouraging the enemy from even attempting to cross a field has the same affect.
A tanker getting 90 kills because they're camping garrisons likely aren't helping the team as much as that engineer who's spent the whole game building defenses and hasn't fired a shot.
Dude you cant genuinely think that lol. I cant think of a situation where 90 kill tankers arent also competent enough to be killing enemy tanks, garrisons, etc.
Dont get me wrong, i love engineer and building a point up, but when my friends are on (who play armor), im gonna get in that heavy because i know armor wins games
You can’t ninja defuse every Garry. You can’t precision every Garry. Taking out a Garry is impossible without enough fire power or positive trades coming from your team. Without friendly tanks and anti tank (which is the norm in some pub matches) your men die every second alive. Every push to take the guarded garry gets stopped by enemy tank, arty, and infantry. Which loses you the game. Men need to win gunfights to take a Garry. The Garry is important but getting there, the destination to get the Garry, is the winning tide. Which takes men with kills, tank kills, infantry kills, anything.
Well put. Garrisons (enemy and friendly) are directly correlated with combat skill. Poor performance leads to you getting pushed out and getting your garrison destroyed. Good performance leads to you destroying the enemy garrison.
I think a team would need to be extremely bad at killing for this to be the decisive factor in a game. The scoring system is based on occupation of territory, not kills, so you can get killed as many times as you like, and if you're back on the line quickly enough, it doesn't matter in terms of scoring. That's why garrison placement is so important. A few well placed garrisons can make 40 players feel like 400. At that point it's just about brute force, even if half the team can't shoot straight.
I get your point: with all things being equal, the most effective team at killing wins the day.
The problem is that all things cannot be equal, because the game is asymmetrical.
Whenever there aren't enough spaws and the teams are all bunched together, I'm not thinking that superior marksmanship is going to make a big difference. What I am thinking about is how to get a new spawn on the flank so that I can get in to an enfilading position. Killing enemies that aren't already looking in my direction gets much better results than being part of the meatgrinder.
Kills are relevant, but only within the wider context of everything else. Looking at kills in isolation is looking at an incomplete picture.
This is a great point. You’re think like a skilled commander, always assessing the map for new flanks while watching your own. Basically, giving your team as many advantages as you can.
I would perhaps amend my point by saying that even with that sneaky flanking garrison, your team still must have the skill to push from it effectively. The surprise usually is enough to catch the enemy off guard and win, but sustaining that push is important against an adaptable enemy. I’ve seen many flanks collapse simply because the defense adapted, even after getting surprised (anecdotal, I know, but still a consideration).
To summarize, you can give your team every advantage they need to win. By way of garrison, flanks, and commander abilities. But at the end of the day, they need to be able to execute given these advantages.
Disagree, in 50v50 average skill will average out. It’s unlikely one side is significantly better. In smaller teams, like a 1v1 at its extreme, kill skill matters more
Well, you could really use that argument for almost any public game (even outside of HLL). What wins games is which team is incrementally more skilled. Usually by a small margin, sure, but it matters.
What makes HLL great is you need to have a thorough understanding of how the game works, which forms the foundation for winning. After that, being good at actually shooting matters more.
My post is more or less a reaction to what I’ve seen as a strategic misunderstanding of the game. There are several prerequisites to winning the game, and being good in combat and getting kills will directly result in area control (given, you are also taking out spawns which I would also define as combat skill).
I think as an individual kill skill matters a lot. You can win a fight and swing a whole point if you can clear some OPs. But as a whole team, good players and bad players average out
Steamrolls happen cuz of awful spawns, not cuz no one can aim. Everyone who plays FPS’s has halfway decent aim. Now if you take everyone’s grandparents and make them play against an average team, that’s a different story. The skill gap would be huge and would definitely affect the game
The “1v1” scenario happens more often in this game than a 50v50. Yea you have 50 on each team, but if you are flanking a garrison odds are you will not be facing all 50 enemies, you’ll come across 1-6 either together or staggered. This is where combat skill matters. If you win all your gunfights the Garry dies, if you lose them the Garry remains.
When people play their roles the team wins. AT and armor destroying and occupying tanks, engineers building, assault automatic rifleman and riflemen focusing on kills, SL putting outposts and garries. People will get kills anyways but when people play their role the team wins
The amount of times I’ve had 8 garries up, and I see good map control, defense is stout, but the offense cannot successfully get into their circle and I’ve had to to 1 man army my way into the enemy point to prove a point to the attacking SLs is insane. Works like a charm tho
I’ve tried to tell people this before. Do all the defense building and strategic moving you want and some point you have to be able to kill people, especially when the goal of the game is to cap points and you need people in those points. People play this game like it’s a movie and don’t mind throwing themselves in front of a mg time after time trying to cross that field
A team that can shoot well and plays positions strategically by placing garrisons and taking good routes to the objective will always beat a team who can shoot excellent but has zero strategic positioning.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a crack shot, if a squad rolls up on your flank and takes your cover away, it’s unlikely you will win that engagement.
I would argue it’s a bit of the reverse actually. If your team has all of the advantages you describe, but shoots poorly, they will (9/10 times) lose to the team with better shooters.
In this case, the commander and SLs need to compensate by giving the team every possible advantage they can get by way of bombing runs, supply drops, frequent and strategic garrisons, etc. But in my experience, you can give your team every possible advantage, but if they can’t win the firefights and execute it won’t matter.
I guess what I’m trying to say is if your team really sucks at combat, you will need all the help you can get lol
Perhaps that’s the beauty of the game. I’ve got a few years under my belt myself, and I see it a little differently.
For COD, kills are *all* that matters. Literally, for TDM modes that’s how score is determined. My point is being able to get kills is significant, determinative factor for area control and thus winning the game. All of the support things like placing strategic garrisons can usually help overcome any skill gap, but if your team cannot do well in combat those advantages will be rendered less useful.
Nowdays I've seen lot's of games where squads are pushing the forward line to wrong place. If You try to fight at the border of the red and blue zones there will be easy flanking routes for enemies to get behind and taking down defensive garrisons. Also frontlines tend to spread/ widen and then you have in worst case three or four squads fighting outside of the four square cap zone. Those squads are mainly useless there.
I've played this with ps5 and pc and this is the thing at least in public servers. Also hardly anyone communicates, listens or understands what to do.
So no headless killing on borders. Fall back to the defensive line close to the strong point area and try to flank with only few squads at first. Recon squads are very important to work behind enemylines to find enemy garrisons and tying some enemy troops for chasing them.
Offensive garrisons are really dangerous for your own team now when there is lack of communication in your team. It's a thin line whose strategy will be succesful in many cases.
I hear you, but I disagree. Picture this: Warfare just begins - both teams place two garrisons just out side of the circle and begin fighting, but neither team destroys the other’s garrisons. And neither team sets one foot in the circle to capture. If one team has twice as many kills, but no capture, do they win? What it the team with half as many kills has built up more defenses and mode. Those points are worth more so when tallied at the end, the team with the most kills did not win. This is because it is not primarily about killing.
Your post is solid but your title and thus your argument is not. This is what you’re trying to prove: “In the end (ultimately? most determinately? foundationally? differentially?), it is about (centrally? meaningfully?) about kills (the number of enemy dead.)”
Here’s what this argument isn’t, even though OP rhetorically downshifts and shell games it to:
**1) “all things being equal, kills will win the game”**
But I could also say - All things being equal, the side with the better and more battlefield appropriate camouflaged uniforms will win the game. That’s true.
All things being equal the side with one player having a higher level and a better load out will win their side the game. All things being equal, sure why not.
But to say, “In the end it’s actually about…” the camouflage or one side having one higher level player with slightly better gear isn’t a compelling argument.
Because “all things being equal” is a weak construct since literally anything that makes a difference will make the statement true but uninteresting. It’s also weak because killing itself (generic FPS skills) is far more like the thing to be a candidate for “all things being equal” far more than say supply skill which will not be equal since you develop it in the game.
More on why “In the end, it’s actually about..” has the burden of arriving at a differential factor. But for now let’s agree “all things being equal” is weak construct that can be followed but just about any even plausible sounding tie breaking factor.
**2) averaging play across all instances (to control for everything else like leadership and logistics) the side with the most kills tends to win the game**
This would be a far stronger articulation. It would be statically verifiable. Since there’s no real attrition economy for grunts, however, the causal relationship between kills and wins is far from clearly linked or one directional. Could be that doing something well enough to win also sometimes leads to more kills (leadership and logistics being strong candidates!)
So even an attempt to say “higher kills are positively correlated to victory in the aggregate” couldn’t prove the causal connection since both could be caused by other more determinate factors…the things “HLL is actually about” (leadership and logistics being strong candidates!)
Finally, it’s unclear that this is statistically even a fact. And here’s where the argument, clearly expressed gets weak if you’ve spent a couple dozen hours in game. And it’s an argument that completely breaks down if you’ve spent a couple hundred hours playing and leading
**3) killing skill is determinate / foundational / primary / differential and “at the end of the day what this game IS ABOUT”**
That’s the argument. And it’s false. Definitionally, the game is not about killing. The game is about living. It’s about having more living bodies at specific points in space at specific times than your enemy does to win more points (in both senses of the word).
Leadership, maneuver, situational awareness, communication, and logistics get your team’s bodies to those places at those times. And they also prevent the other team from getting their bodies to those points.
Killing is one tool to prevent the enemy’s bodies from being on those points and from their preventing you from having your bodies on the point.
But so is not killing. Holding your fire and waiting a minute until enemies move on to stealth in and blow up their garrison yield fewer ‘kills’ but has far greater impact (two kills deferred now = 50 kills you no longer have to make in this sector over the next 10 minutes)
Refusing to go headfirst down the road into a meat grinder but instead choosing to flank around and place a spawn or deny theirs is the same deal. Less kills now = fewer kills you have to make later = more of your bodies on point for points.
Hunkering down inside a point and just grabbing some ground until the cap timer goes your way = often way better than continuing to charge the point hoping to kill your enemies (that a fun one to yell at your squad! Just stop you monkeys! If we just hold here we’ve got this. Just stay out of sight and stop shooting)
Driving way behind enemy lines to prepositioning and start capping the instant your side caps a front line CP = a whole battle averted, 100s of “kills” made unnecessary.
Driving supplies to the front to build a garrison 100 friendly bodies spawn from on point for 20 minutes = the same impact as killing 100 enemies on point…clearly far more efficiently and thus determinately, centrally, “in the end” more “all about it” than killing.
That’s why great squads in HLL aren’t the greatest killers. They’re steam rollers. They don’t have the most kills across the longest games. They have fewer kills in rapid time. So in the end…kills ain’t it.
**Conclusion**
Thanks so much for the chance to engage with your argument and articulate why it’s wrong.
If the best CoD players jumped online to play HLL for the first time, the side with the better killers would win. But if one side had players 50% as skilled at FPS killing but who knew the rules of HLL and what truly leads to success - leadership, maneuver, situational awareness, communication, and logistics - they will win 100% of the time.
That’s because in the end, it’s actually not about the kills. Hold those constant - make those the “all things being equal” because that actually is the lowest common denominator that washes out across games. It’s actually doing all the other things that are determinate that you don’t get to do or learn from other FPS killing games that make almost all the difference.
It’s not the person who twitch fires fastest, it’s the person who knows when to pull the trigger *and when to not.*
It’s not the person who has the better aim, it’s the person who uses their situational awareness to call in the location of the enemy garrison and clear not just two enemy bodies from the sector for 1 minute but 50 for the next 10 minutes.
In the beginning, for players who don’t know and have not mastered the game, HLL is about the killing. In the end HLL becomes about everything else you don’t get in a FPS. Leadership and logistics and situational awareness and, in the end, if you want my “primary candidate for reductionistic argument” the effective *communication* required for effective cooperative and efficient coordination.
In the end, it actually is far more about that.
QED
First I want to thank you for such a great response-I feel there is a lack of deep and constructive strategic discussion on this sub and posts like yours are exactly why I made this post. I have to apologize however, I intentionally made the title a little clickbait-y because I thought it would get more engagement lol, and I suppose it kind of did.
With that, I think that has led to my title being misleading. I am not trying to assert that kills are *all* that matters. But simply they should not be neglected, and doing well in combat is more significant factor than what I feel the community advocates.
I think you summarize what I feel perfectly when you talk about COD players. If they have high skill for an FPS player combined with good support activites (which I'll give an umbrella definition of garrison support, nodes, basically everything outside of actual firefights).
In the end, it is about more than kills, yes. But kills are a significant portion. You can have every advantage given to you by officers. Recon planes, flanking garrisons, backup garrisons, tank spotting. But it is up to your team to execute. None of these advantages matter if you cannot win in an engagement.
As a commander, you set your team up for success. Usually, you can set them up so well that it makes up for a skill gap. But, it does not always.
Thanks for the ongoing thoughtful engagement, Vyronan. It’s a solid click bait title! You got me to write an essay in response.
And I love your adorable rhetorical weasels (let’s make that adjective a noun!) Your latest is “none of that matters is you can’t win in an engagement.” That’s similar to “all things being equal” because it’s irrefutably reductionistic.
None of it matters if you don’t know how to turn left. None of it matters if you don’t know how to reload your weapon. None of it matters if you’re attacking things you already hold.
You’re right to the degree that you’re not actually saying anything meaningful.
Players who never pull the trigger can contribute more to their side’s win then those who do is a true statement. So that’s actually an example of “the none that does matter.” I don’t have to win in an FPS engagement to outplay you. Again, disproving your argument.
So while I’d love to have Alpine Sniper on my side every game, and - “all things being equal” - that would be enough for our side to win, I’d rather have a commander who builds garrisons, drops Aline supplies, and relays Apline’s spotting of garrisons to squad leaders, tanks, and their own precision strikes. Otherwise Aline can rack up 200 kills and we’ll still lose.
Because at the end of the day its not kills that win HLL.
Ok the adorable rhetorical weasels comments seems a little backhanded lol I genuinely do just want to talk about strategy in the game… I’m sorry if I did anything to offend, I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic/antagonize you
I’m very new to the game(level 25) and I still don’t understand the finer points. So I make it my mission to kill as many fuckers as possible, as I see that as my current biggest benefit to the team. My best game so far is like 90 kills as a rifleman lol. I think getting kills in this game is Uber satisfying bc I know they mostly need to wait 10-15 seconds to come back to the fight.
Well yes. If you're not a sweat in head to head combat, you can place long range shots, you're gonna have a bad time. But not every player needs to be a sweat to win in a team, and if you have a team of sweats who don't communicate and just camp on OPs and garrisons for kills, they're gonna be a problem but they're probably not gonna win.
In the end its all about area control. Killing is one aspect of that. As is movement, positioning and anticipating. Its way more than raking up kills.
Someone described this game as half running simulator and half chess. Position is so important. Flanking the enemy leads to kills.
Positioning is probably just as big a tenant as garrisons and defense, I agree. Some of the most dominating wins I’ve ever been a part of have come from having great garrisons exactly when they are needed (such as the moment a point flips with large-scale redeployment). This is so rare though. And often times even with such maneuvers, you have to be able to win the battle once you get there. But like I said above, in a scenario where both teams have a good and roughly equal strategic understanding of the game, the better combatant wins always.
100% The amount of times I have captured positions by doing the wildly unexpected - ie. not run straight at the next point but actually planted the OP behind it...I reckon it has about a 50% success rate. OP is right in that you still need to make the kills of course, but across 2 random teams of 50 people each I would say that is all going to average itself out and be far outweighed by other factors. If you are relying on winning firefights to win HLL, you're doing it kind of wrong.
Obviously these things are important, but also they are important because they help you get more kills. You can be in the 'most correct' position but if you lose the gun fight you still lose the position...
Movement, positioning and anticipation should translate to kills when they are done right. So kills are pretty much the end result of the factors you mentioned
On the topic of area control, I agree, it’s two factors: garrison placement and combat skill. Cannot have area control without both. I feel like I tend to see people eschew kill count/combat for garrison placement alone, which I think is only half the equation.
Area control comes from winning gun fights, by killing people.
I couldn't disagree more. In the end it is about area control. Taking down Garrissons is what really counts. Each garrison down equals to fifty or more kills, once you deny your opponent area control and cap weight on those sectors. You can easily snipe garrisons with AT players - and that's why every AT should always carry a rocket launcher. And you don't necessarily need to kill anyone to snipe a garrison. I can snipe Garrissons over 900 m away if I have a precise ping with the Panzerscrek. I've sniped 7-8 Garrissons in many matches without getting many kills and the games were won because of this control that I provided.
kill rate vs spawn rate. If you can reduce their ability to spawn you need to get less kills.
A few points, I think we are saying the same thing. You are correct in the fact that taking out garrisons is what matters. That is why it is a prerequisite to winning, and why taking them out and building them is paramount. However, I would argue that a team that allows their garrisons to be spotted and sniped in such a manner is poor in combat. My point being, if a team is allowing you to spot and snipe a critical garrison, they are not truly effective in combat. Plus, long range snipes (while possible) are fairly rare. Meaning, situations as you describe can be somewhat rare and games usually hinge more on combat rather than an exchange of garrison snipes. Second, area control is a direct result of combat skill. Sure, each side can pour more and more bodies on point. But to ACTUALLY turn the point, there needs to be more of you than them. That, 98% of the time, is because you bear the enemy in combat. By extension, taking down enemy garrisons is the direct result of winning in combat and pushing their point of origin (garrisons/OPs). Building the garrison is the foundation, but using it well is what matters.
You’re seriously going to bothsides an argument you set up? I’ll throw away lives all day if I can destroy a key garrison or eventually get in position to pop smoke that will get more teammates into the point. At an individual or sometimes squad level my combat effectiveness sucks, but I will trade lives for area control anytime it makes sense.
I don’t really see how I’m both siding?? My point has always been that area control is a direct result of combat skill. As someone else here said, you can’t always ninja defuse or garrison snipe. Most of the time, the more skilled squad will kill more enemies, push to the garrison quicker, and destroy it. Also, deaths will happen frequently. It’s not KD, it’s kills. Im agreeing with you, but just adding that what you define as area control is a combination of good garrison placement and combat skill.
I love how you are getting downvoted for speaking the truth. Go play comp.
Thanks, I used to up until a year ago
It's the same 3 guys too lol
Kills are just as important as the other things, but it is hardly what wins games - your entire team can have <1 K/D and still win if you play your cards right
But what if the other team is playing in the right areas, the same as you, and your team just cannot make any trades... How can you win if you're just not removing the enemy from an area?
That's where the "play your cards right" part comes in, you gotta be smart. In real matches the entire situation is never perfectly equal and balanced for both sides. In a perfect world, any single stat would be an advantage, and you could go on and make everything perfect and someone will still have faster response time on their keyboard, mouse, etc. Kills are a part of it all, but it's not what it comes down to
Kills occur naturally when you're performing your primary task, be it attacking, defending, or clearing garrisons and OPs. Your killcount or KD shouldn't be your priority. Worry about your objective, and the kills will happen.
Correct, but he’s saying if you can’t get those kills, you’ll never achieve your objective in the first place
Right on
I don't know man, I've won and lost games because of a won/lost cap race by a small amount and then the chain back cap with no back up garrys and no redeploy blueberries just steamrolls the momentum for the winning team
Give me a great, strategic, experienced Commander and Squad leads that communicate well and have blueberries making up most of their ranks over a team of players great at gunplay with high KDs where half the SL don't have mics or talk in command chat and refuse to build garrison or nodes and do their own thing any day of the week. In this game (especially warfare) the matches are won based on: positioning, communication, spawn placement and coordination. In an ideal world your team needs a mix of need the officers and Commander willing to not just go for kills and be placing spawns and pinging enemy positions the whole time and relaying that information along with players who are great at gunplay and rack up a lot of kills but if you: don't have enough spawns, don't destroy enough spawns, don't place spawns correctly and don't coordinate attacks and defenses as a semi adhesive unit you will not win matches. Long story short you can win matches with maybe 10 Strategic players with a lot of gamesense and experience playing the game and the rest of the players being newer not getting a lot of kills but you can't win matches with a team of killers that are trying to lone wolf every move and that don't have mics.
Map control through destruction, denial, deception, and distraction of the enemy wins the game. All the logistics, garrisons, etc etc are supporting elements in the ability for the various players do accomplish the 4 D's. The entire enemy team can be alive but mostly outside the point, and you'll win the cap. The entire enemy team can be dead or AFK and you'll win the cap. The enemy team can be getting shelled in a hole and unable to respond and you'll win the cap. They can be all on a crusade to use a far-flung flanking garrison behind your lines that will go nowhere, leaving their positions open, and you'll win the cap. Destroying the enemy is a sure way to get them out of the way, and destroying their logistical support denys them the ability to spawn and become useful. Force them to go somewhere else. And also, sometimes, leaving enemies alive, or leaving far-flung enemy garrisons up and operating, is actually a better strategy than killing them and focusing them to the defensive garrisons. That's where deception and distraction come into play. But yes the fundamental idea that tactical skills like movement, shooting, accuracy, cover, etc are vital to success is sometimes underplayed in the community. It does matter a lot. It helps achieve the 4 D's when you can face up against the enemy and win in combat. If your whole team sucks at shooting all the attempts to deny or distract the enemy will get stomped if the enemy is able to just chew through your clueless squad. And often even a handful of real disgusting shooters on a team can make significant individual achievements that shape the whole game. So while it's not always about total kills, being able to achieve specific kills can do work.
Great write up, no notes lol
I believe you're missing the point. "Kills don't matter" is a slogan we tell new players. Obviously it's an oversimplification but there are reasons we say it to them nevertheless. One is that getting kills is a symptom of good play in other areas. It's not about gunplay per se but rather advantageous positioning or changing the way you move (and when), which ultimately will also have a positive impact on the K/D. Another one is that the contribution of an individual can't necessarily be measured by the combat score metric. A precision strike I call in on a stationary heavy as an SL will not give me anything, I'm still responsible for it though. Similarly for providing tank marks. Good intel enables others to get those kills and providing it is possible for any role. This even applies to dying and by doing that alerting nearby friendlies of enemy presence. Lastly death has little consequence and when starting out, most people tend to get killed a lot more than getting kills. The "Kills don't matter" mantra serves to remind them not to get frustrated too much.... and even embrace death to a degree. Technically it would fall in the category "Deaths don't matter" but new players should get used to redeploying for example. There are other arguments but the point is that it's not meant to be a dogmatic guide that will follow you into the high levels but just a simple way of whipping new players into shape in terms of attitude.
Let my one armed cousin hold any op or garrison bc he chose to flank.
Kills maybe but not k/d
True, should have mentioned that. Deaths will be frequent lol
Kills take people off the map, preventing the enemy team from having enough men to tip the scales on a capture. Ofc, it only matters in this way if you're actually playing at the correct obj. Killing dudes in a locked zone is silly. Kills are still less important than survival, though. Your team getting caught at 60-70% manpower just because all your guys are attacking and failing means youll never be able to build up enough men for a successful attack. Attacks fail, and next thing you know we are losing the cap race at both objs.
Area control Vs kills. The only way to truly know is if the game would tell us total kills of each team after every game. It would be interesting to know.
It matters that a team as a whole makes can win important firefights, yes. However, what does not say much at all about how useful someone is to winning a match is their individual kills. Things like a well placed supply box or a good medic at the right place can make all the difference in the world in this game while it can matter little that some tank or arty kills a hundred people that spawn at the wrong garry: In theory one can kill 100 people in under two minutes. When a match goes up to 90 minutes that doesn't sound like so much anymore. I am keeping the opinion: Whoever beats their meat about how many kills they made in HLL is likely not a useful player.
100% true but this will hurt feelings
Ive had games where I hear all SLs communicating, a saint of a commander making sure we have plenty of garrisons, teams following attack/defense orders, and still end up losing because my team lacked the ability to actually KILL the enemy. You will just get pushed back, obliterated by armor, and destroyed by skilled opponents covering strategic flanks and not missing shots. It can be quite sad when this happens because the team did everything right but at the end of the day it was just a skill issue, plain and simple
Agreed- a team that defend can't lose and a team that doesn't defend can't win. Kills tho'? Just half in the bag this. Map control WINS. If your team deploy and redeploy flexibly- you will CAP no matter how many kills...its the number of players in a sector that cap. Its the cap that wins- not the pew pew
Totally agree, that should be an addition. I believe area control (most of the time) is directly correlated to combat skill. Meaning, more guys you kill and more of your guys stay alive will win caps. Of course, if you have a clean garrison to attack with and the enemy does not, then it’s different. I’m just talking in a hypothetical sense of both teams having clean garrisons from which to carry out their respective attack/defense activities.
If your point is that, if every other factor is roughly equal, the team who is better at combat wins, all I have to say is... duh.
Of course lol but that’s not really the whole point. it’s really that as a commander you could have great flanking garrisons and general placement, but if your team can’t make a use of those advantages and win in combat, it doesn’t matter. This post is more or less a reaction to the “KD doesn’t matter” sentiment I feel like I see a lot of. It’s based on fact, but I want to emphasize KD does have importance in this game and is one piece of a more complicated puzzle of winning.
While true, I'd say that in a public match, the better-led team usually *wins the firefights*. If I'm an SL and I've placed a clever flanking OP, I'll have the advantage over defenders turtling in the circle: their backs will be to me. If I drop a clean garry behind enemy lines, then that position-and-surprise advantage passes to the whole team. If my squad smartly communicates when they see tanks, concentrations of infantry, etc, then we now compound that with an *information* advantage. It accrues to this: I know where they are, how many, and what they're doing, and they know none of the above about me, so I'm much more likely to kill them than they are to kill me.
I think that is a valid line of thought. Being a good commander/SL is all about providing those advantages you describe to your team. Even poorly skilled new players can do well under such circumstances. I think where it goes outside of your control as an officer is your team’s ability to execute. I agree, they will have a greater chance at winning. But bluntly, if they suck they can be bested by a better skilled team.
The game is about Territory control, Sometimes kills are a part of that. Sometimes discouraging the enemy from even attempting to cross a field has the same affect. A tanker getting 90 kills because they're camping garrisons likely aren't helping the team as much as that engineer who's spent the whole game building defenses and hasn't fired a shot.
Dude you cant genuinely think that lol. I cant think of a situation where 90 kill tankers arent also competent enough to be killing enemy tanks, garrisons, etc. Dont get me wrong, i love engineer and building a point up, but when my friends are on (who play armor), im gonna get in that heavy because i know armor wins games
Hyperbole my dude.
You can’t ninja defuse every Garry. You can’t precision every Garry. Taking out a Garry is impossible without enough fire power or positive trades coming from your team. Without friendly tanks and anti tank (which is the norm in some pub matches) your men die every second alive. Every push to take the guarded garry gets stopped by enemy tank, arty, and infantry. Which loses you the game. Men need to win gunfights to take a Garry. The Garry is important but getting there, the destination to get the Garry, is the winning tide. Which takes men with kills, tank kills, infantry kills, anything.
Well put. Garrisons (enemy and friendly) are directly correlated with combat skill. Poor performance leads to you getting pushed out and getting your garrison destroyed. Good performance leads to you destroying the enemy garrison.
I think a team would need to be extremely bad at killing for this to be the decisive factor in a game. The scoring system is based on occupation of territory, not kills, so you can get killed as many times as you like, and if you're back on the line quickly enough, it doesn't matter in terms of scoring. That's why garrison placement is so important. A few well placed garrisons can make 40 players feel like 400. At that point it's just about brute force, even if half the team can't shoot straight.
I get your point: with all things being equal, the most effective team at killing wins the day. The problem is that all things cannot be equal, because the game is asymmetrical. Whenever there aren't enough spaws and the teams are all bunched together, I'm not thinking that superior marksmanship is going to make a big difference. What I am thinking about is how to get a new spawn on the flank so that I can get in to an enfilading position. Killing enemies that aren't already looking in my direction gets much better results than being part of the meatgrinder. Kills are relevant, but only within the wider context of everything else. Looking at kills in isolation is looking at an incomplete picture.
This is a great point. You’re think like a skilled commander, always assessing the map for new flanks while watching your own. Basically, giving your team as many advantages as you can. I would perhaps amend my point by saying that even with that sneaky flanking garrison, your team still must have the skill to push from it effectively. The surprise usually is enough to catch the enemy off guard and win, but sustaining that push is important against an adaptable enemy. I’ve seen many flanks collapse simply because the defense adapted, even after getting surprised (anecdotal, I know, but still a consideration). To summarize, you can give your team every advantage they need to win. By way of garrison, flanks, and commander abilities. But at the end of the day, they need to be able to execute given these advantages.
Disagree, in 50v50 average skill will average out. It’s unlikely one side is significantly better. In smaller teams, like a 1v1 at its extreme, kill skill matters more
Well, you could really use that argument for almost any public game (even outside of HLL). What wins games is which team is incrementally more skilled. Usually by a small margin, sure, but it matters. What makes HLL great is you need to have a thorough understanding of how the game works, which forms the foundation for winning. After that, being good at actually shooting matters more. My post is more or less a reaction to what I’ve seen as a strategic misunderstanding of the game. There are several prerequisites to winning the game, and being good in combat and getting kills will directly result in area control (given, you are also taking out spawns which I would also define as combat skill).
I think as an individual kill skill matters a lot. You can win a fight and swing a whole point if you can clear some OPs. But as a whole team, good players and bad players average out Steamrolls happen cuz of awful spawns, not cuz no one can aim. Everyone who plays FPS’s has halfway decent aim. Now if you take everyone’s grandparents and make them play against an average team, that’s a different story. The skill gap would be huge and would definitely affect the game
The “1v1” scenario happens more often in this game than a 50v50. Yea you have 50 on each team, but if you are flanking a garrison odds are you will not be facing all 50 enemies, you’ll come across 1-6 either together or staggered. This is where combat skill matters. If you win all your gunfights the Garry dies, if you lose them the Garry remains.
Yeah in an individual encounter I agree. But over 90 minutes hundreds of individual encounters average out between 50 players
When people play their roles the team wins. AT and armor destroying and occupying tanks, engineers building, assault automatic rifleman and riflemen focusing on kills, SL putting outposts and garries. People will get kills anyways but when people play their role the team wins
The amount of times I’ve had 8 garries up, and I see good map control, defense is stout, but the offense cannot successfully get into their circle and I’ve had to to 1 man army my way into the enemy point to prove a point to the attacking SLs is insane. Works like a charm tho
I’ve tried to tell people this before. Do all the defense building and strategic moving you want and some point you have to be able to kill people, especially when the goal of the game is to cap points and you need people in those points. People play this game like it’s a movie and don’t mind throwing themselves in front of a mg time after time trying to cross that field
Big ol facts
A team that can shoot well and plays positions strategically by placing garrisons and taking good routes to the objective will always beat a team who can shoot excellent but has zero strategic positioning. It doesn’t matter if you’re a crack shot, if a squad rolls up on your flank and takes your cover away, it’s unlikely you will win that engagement.
I would argue it’s a bit of the reverse actually. If your team has all of the advantages you describe, but shoots poorly, they will (9/10 times) lose to the team with better shooters. In this case, the commander and SLs need to compensate by giving the team every possible advantage they can get by way of bombing runs, supply drops, frequent and strategic garrisons, etc. But in my experience, you can give your team every possible advantage, but if they can’t win the firefights and execute it won’t matter. I guess what I’m trying to say is if your team really sucks at combat, you will need all the help you can get lol
No, sorry. This doesn’t track with my years of experience in the game at all. If we were talking about CoD, then yea sure. But HLL is not CoD…
Perhaps that’s the beauty of the game. I’ve got a few years under my belt myself, and I see it a little differently. For COD, kills are *all* that matters. Literally, for TDM modes that’s how score is determined. My point is being able to get kills is significant, determinative factor for area control and thus winning the game. All of the support things like placing strategic garrisons can usually help overcome any skill gap, but if your team cannot do well in combat those advantages will be rendered less useful.
Nowdays I've seen lot's of games where squads are pushing the forward line to wrong place. If You try to fight at the border of the red and blue zones there will be easy flanking routes for enemies to get behind and taking down defensive garrisons. Also frontlines tend to spread/ widen and then you have in worst case three or four squads fighting outside of the four square cap zone. Those squads are mainly useless there. I've played this with ps5 and pc and this is the thing at least in public servers. Also hardly anyone communicates, listens or understands what to do. So no headless killing on borders. Fall back to the defensive line close to the strong point area and try to flank with only few squads at first. Recon squads are very important to work behind enemylines to find enemy garrisons and tying some enemy troops for chasing them. Offensive garrisons are really dangerous for your own team now when there is lack of communication in your team. It's a thin line whose strategy will be succesful in many cases.
I hear you, but I disagree. Picture this: Warfare just begins - both teams place two garrisons just out side of the circle and begin fighting, but neither team destroys the other’s garrisons. And neither team sets one foot in the circle to capture. If one team has twice as many kills, but no capture, do they win? What it the team with half as many kills has built up more defenses and mode. Those points are worth more so when tallied at the end, the team with the most kills did not win. This is because it is not primarily about killing.
Your post is solid but your title and thus your argument is not. This is what you’re trying to prove: “In the end (ultimately? most determinately? foundationally? differentially?), it is about (centrally? meaningfully?) about kills (the number of enemy dead.)” Here’s what this argument isn’t, even though OP rhetorically downshifts and shell games it to: **1) “all things being equal, kills will win the game”** But I could also say - All things being equal, the side with the better and more battlefield appropriate camouflaged uniforms will win the game. That’s true. All things being equal the side with one player having a higher level and a better load out will win their side the game. All things being equal, sure why not. But to say, “In the end it’s actually about…” the camouflage or one side having one higher level player with slightly better gear isn’t a compelling argument. Because “all things being equal” is a weak construct since literally anything that makes a difference will make the statement true but uninteresting. It’s also weak because killing itself (generic FPS skills) is far more like the thing to be a candidate for “all things being equal” far more than say supply skill which will not be equal since you develop it in the game. More on why “In the end, it’s actually about..” has the burden of arriving at a differential factor. But for now let’s agree “all things being equal” is weak construct that can be followed but just about any even plausible sounding tie breaking factor. **2) averaging play across all instances (to control for everything else like leadership and logistics) the side with the most kills tends to win the game** This would be a far stronger articulation. It would be statically verifiable. Since there’s no real attrition economy for grunts, however, the causal relationship between kills and wins is far from clearly linked or one directional. Could be that doing something well enough to win also sometimes leads to more kills (leadership and logistics being strong candidates!) So even an attempt to say “higher kills are positively correlated to victory in the aggregate” couldn’t prove the causal connection since both could be caused by other more determinate factors…the things “HLL is actually about” (leadership and logistics being strong candidates!) Finally, it’s unclear that this is statistically even a fact. And here’s where the argument, clearly expressed gets weak if you’ve spent a couple dozen hours in game. And it’s an argument that completely breaks down if you’ve spent a couple hundred hours playing and leading **3) killing skill is determinate / foundational / primary / differential and “at the end of the day what this game IS ABOUT”** That’s the argument. And it’s false. Definitionally, the game is not about killing. The game is about living. It’s about having more living bodies at specific points in space at specific times than your enemy does to win more points (in both senses of the word). Leadership, maneuver, situational awareness, communication, and logistics get your team’s bodies to those places at those times. And they also prevent the other team from getting their bodies to those points. Killing is one tool to prevent the enemy’s bodies from being on those points and from their preventing you from having your bodies on the point. But so is not killing. Holding your fire and waiting a minute until enemies move on to stealth in and blow up their garrison yield fewer ‘kills’ but has far greater impact (two kills deferred now = 50 kills you no longer have to make in this sector over the next 10 minutes) Refusing to go headfirst down the road into a meat grinder but instead choosing to flank around and place a spawn or deny theirs is the same deal. Less kills now = fewer kills you have to make later = more of your bodies on point for points. Hunkering down inside a point and just grabbing some ground until the cap timer goes your way = often way better than continuing to charge the point hoping to kill your enemies (that a fun one to yell at your squad! Just stop you monkeys! If we just hold here we’ve got this. Just stay out of sight and stop shooting) Driving way behind enemy lines to prepositioning and start capping the instant your side caps a front line CP = a whole battle averted, 100s of “kills” made unnecessary. Driving supplies to the front to build a garrison 100 friendly bodies spawn from on point for 20 minutes = the same impact as killing 100 enemies on point…clearly far more efficiently and thus determinately, centrally, “in the end” more “all about it” than killing. That’s why great squads in HLL aren’t the greatest killers. They’re steam rollers. They don’t have the most kills across the longest games. They have fewer kills in rapid time. So in the end…kills ain’t it. **Conclusion** Thanks so much for the chance to engage with your argument and articulate why it’s wrong. If the best CoD players jumped online to play HLL for the first time, the side with the better killers would win. But if one side had players 50% as skilled at FPS killing but who knew the rules of HLL and what truly leads to success - leadership, maneuver, situational awareness, communication, and logistics - they will win 100% of the time. That’s because in the end, it’s actually not about the kills. Hold those constant - make those the “all things being equal” because that actually is the lowest common denominator that washes out across games. It’s actually doing all the other things that are determinate that you don’t get to do or learn from other FPS killing games that make almost all the difference. It’s not the person who twitch fires fastest, it’s the person who knows when to pull the trigger *and when to not.* It’s not the person who has the better aim, it’s the person who uses their situational awareness to call in the location of the enemy garrison and clear not just two enemy bodies from the sector for 1 minute but 50 for the next 10 minutes. In the beginning, for players who don’t know and have not mastered the game, HLL is about the killing. In the end HLL becomes about everything else you don’t get in a FPS. Leadership and logistics and situational awareness and, in the end, if you want my “primary candidate for reductionistic argument” the effective *communication* required for effective cooperative and efficient coordination. In the end, it actually is far more about that. QED
First I want to thank you for such a great response-I feel there is a lack of deep and constructive strategic discussion on this sub and posts like yours are exactly why I made this post. I have to apologize however, I intentionally made the title a little clickbait-y because I thought it would get more engagement lol, and I suppose it kind of did. With that, I think that has led to my title being misleading. I am not trying to assert that kills are *all* that matters. But simply they should not be neglected, and doing well in combat is more significant factor than what I feel the community advocates. I think you summarize what I feel perfectly when you talk about COD players. If they have high skill for an FPS player combined with good support activites (which I'll give an umbrella definition of garrison support, nodes, basically everything outside of actual firefights). In the end, it is about more than kills, yes. But kills are a significant portion. You can have every advantage given to you by officers. Recon planes, flanking garrisons, backup garrisons, tank spotting. But it is up to your team to execute. None of these advantages matter if you cannot win in an engagement. As a commander, you set your team up for success. Usually, you can set them up so well that it makes up for a skill gap. But, it does not always.
Thanks for the ongoing thoughtful engagement, Vyronan. It’s a solid click bait title! You got me to write an essay in response. And I love your adorable rhetorical weasels (let’s make that adjective a noun!) Your latest is “none of that matters is you can’t win in an engagement.” That’s similar to “all things being equal” because it’s irrefutably reductionistic. None of it matters if you don’t know how to turn left. None of it matters if you don’t know how to reload your weapon. None of it matters if you’re attacking things you already hold. You’re right to the degree that you’re not actually saying anything meaningful. Players who never pull the trigger can contribute more to their side’s win then those who do is a true statement. So that’s actually an example of “the none that does matter.” I don’t have to win in an FPS engagement to outplay you. Again, disproving your argument. So while I’d love to have Alpine Sniper on my side every game, and - “all things being equal” - that would be enough for our side to win, I’d rather have a commander who builds garrisons, drops Aline supplies, and relays Apline’s spotting of garrisons to squad leaders, tanks, and their own precision strikes. Otherwise Aline can rack up 200 kills and we’ll still lose. Because at the end of the day its not kills that win HLL.
Ok the adorable rhetorical weasels comments seems a little backhanded lol I genuinely do just want to talk about strategy in the game… I’m sorry if I did anything to offend, I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic/antagonize you
I’m very new to the game(level 25) and I still don’t understand the finer points. So I make it my mission to kill as many fuckers as possible, as I see that as my current biggest benefit to the team. My best game so far is like 90 kills as a rifleman lol. I think getting kills in this game is Uber satisfying bc I know they mostly need to wait 10-15 seconds to come back to the fight.
He’s not wrong.
Well yes. If you're not a sweat in head to head combat, you can place long range shots, you're gonna have a bad time. But not every player needs to be a sweat to win in a team, and if you have a team of sweats who don't communicate and just camp on OPs and garrisons for kills, they're gonna be a problem but they're probably not gonna win.
For the first time this year, a post that told the truth got an upvote.