Which mode has greater strategy, TR or TO?

First, I am comparing these modes as they are both team modes and on the surface they are played in the same way. I'm assuming that anyone reading this knows how to play both modes and will not go into detail about how each is played.

Team Reaper (TR)

In this mode your goal is to kill the opponent and in the process not die. It is as simple as that. The catch is that as a team you have many options. Do you play defensively and stay in your base? Do you rush for the power weapon and defend the user of that? Do you try to hold a specific location on the map? You cannot always do more than one.

Although some would argue that it really does not matter, they usually say that because they are used to being better than their opponent. Of course, if you are so much more skilled that you can rush in and kill two or three members of their team without dying, strategy does not mean much. However, if you are evenly match or the "less skilled" team, strategy is what will win the match.

My Thoughts on TR

The first goal in any TR match is to separate the enemy team. If they cannot work together, then they are relying on pure skill. Next, you want to control enemy movement. You want to force them to attack in a certain way, or from a certain direction. Do not allow them to play to their skills, force them to play into your hand.

Flank. Sending even one member around to their side or back not only allows you to catch them in a crossfire, but can make them act rashly and abandon their strategy. By cutting off their retreat, you are forcing them to kill or be killed, so only do this if you have the upper hand

Finally, remember that grenades, mainly Frags and Flashes, effect a decent sized area. When traveling as a group, do not be so close together that a pair of frags can take out your entire team. That is just stupid.

Team Objective (TO)

Most of the time the main goal will be to capture the enemies' ASE while defending yours. Both ASEs are in a static location that is the same every time (per map). You need to be able to defend your ASE as the other team will be attacking, but you also are required to attack their base, break through their defense to get their ASE, and then make it back to your base alive. Easier said than done.

Many people assume that there is more strategy in TO than TR. There are many more variables you have to consider when planning your strategy and that can complicate matters.

My Thoughts on TO

As I just stated, there are more variables to consider. This makes planning out a strategy more difficult. However, these added variables actually work to streamline things. You know exactly what the other team is trying to do, and you know that they know your goal as well. You can try to be sneaky, but when they know your end goal it is not always that easy.

In TO the strategy becomes more a division of your team. Who does what, who uses what weapon and for what purpose. The re-spawn times are long, so when someone dies, what happens? If a defender dies do the attackers fall back to intercept their now captured ASE? Or do they press on to capture the enemy ASE. There is no right answer, that decision needs to be made on the fly and has a lot to do with how skilled your players are.

In TO you have to be a smarter player and adjust to the situation as they come about. TO games actually require less planning because a single death can change everything. The game ends up being more chaotic because one kill can make or break a 20 minute game.

So yes, TO does require a lot of planning, but actual skill makes a much greater difference. At the same time, luck plays a much larger roll.

My Conclusion

Team Reaper requires a lot more team strategy than Team Objective. Working as a team in TR is the key to victory, even when the plan is to split up. Your teammates need to know what you are doing. You are able to plan ahead and execute those strategies often as a single death is easy to account fore.

Team Objective requires a player to adapt quickly. They need to quickly assess the situation and make the correct decision on their own. The game play is more streamlined and therefore much easier to predict, but when a death occurs, where you are, how close you are to either ASE, where you are in relation to enemies, and what weapons you have all need to be taken into consideration when you make your next move.

TR has more team strategy than TO while TO has more critical individual decision making.

These are my opinions and I encourage you to post yours. If you are going to debate one of mine, please think out what you want to say before typing it as I want reasons why. Thanks for reading.

i think the opposite for the simple fact that you need numbers for TO to play well. it's like a soccer game. if you send too many people forward you leave your defense to pick up the slack and protect from a counter attack. so with a 6v6 some teams might elect a 4 attack 2 defend switching players so often while the other might do the balanced 3 and 3. Soccer is a game of strategy although most people think it is boring it is not only about ability of the body but also of the mind and how the players interact with each other. how to play the game should we cross the ball in or do i try to go 1v1 on a defender? its how you chose your strategy and adapt to the changing game. one score changes the mind set of the players making them more desperate more likely to make mistakes.

2v2 and 3v3 will go to TR though as more strategy.

All I know is that I like TR and that TO annoys me. :S

I disagree too, TO requires great team work to get the ASE(In a balanced game). I remember getting owned by TEC in a war because of their great strategy in TO. In TR I always just run 'n' gun. :0

I also say TO just for the fact that there are so many difffernet ways to chose to get the ASE from your opponent and some take more numbers or teamwork that others

In TR, running and gunning with teammates does work well, while in TO you really need to use your teammates to your advantage if you want to win. The guy with the ASE can't shoot and your team really needs to co-operate in order to successfully defend the guy with the flag. So I would say TO.

I'd say they both take a lot of strategy, just different kinds. TO takes more instant communication and planning, TR takes more knowledge of creating the best possible situation in a fight.

In TO, you need to know on your team who is defending, who is attacking, how many enemies are on offense and defense, are they playing full defense, or are they going to all rush. You have to be able to adjust you plan at any second based on what you see as you are playing. If you see 6 dots moving toward your base, you need to think quickly and decide how many people you need to pull back into defense to take them down. If you notice none of them are moving then you could call an all out offense, or leave just a couple people back to defend. Then there's other variances such as having an offense player hang back during an attack and try to sneak in. Same with defense, you have to decide if you want to have a player stay still and away from the fighting so they are always near the ASE and aren't on the radar. There's more than that, but i think you get my point.

In TR i think it's more about getting the upperhand in a fight since there is no ASE to capture and you are just trying to kill and not die. This involves a number of things such as flanking, out numbering, etc. While communication in wii speak does help, it's not entirely necessary all of the time like TO. If you see your team mate in a fight, flank his enemies and give some back up. He really shouldn't have to tell you to do that unless you are unaware of the situation. And like blaeu said there are a number of strategies to use, such as focusing on defense, offense, guarding the power weapon, splitting your team up into groups to focus on different zones of the map, etc.

Well I say they both take strategy but you really cant compare stratagies for TR with TO.

In TR you can make stratagies such as like for a 4v4 stay in groups of two that way you have a better chance of killing off your enemy who is alone, but if you take the same enviroment of a 4v4 and groups of two for TO, you have to decide which group is gonna stay around your own ASE and which group is going to go out to try and retrieve your oppenents ASE and how are they gonna do it? When are they gonna do it.. after your oppenent leaves or what if there hidden?

They both require startagies but I say TO requires more decisions and decisive thinking.

TR you don't need to go into the enemy base and TO you have to, They both use different strategies. I prefer TR though.

I agree that they both require strategy, but very different sorts of strategy.

I prefer TR more than TO, however. I just find it more fun .

so do we all here neo. welcome from the theory topic

generally i think TR takes more strategy, cus camping in TR doesnt mean you will get a bunch of kills, while camping in TO means you do, in TR you must work with your team to take the lead and keep it, in TO you can go lone wolf and cap the ase, and then camp your own for the win

Goin lone wolf on a TO on pentegon is bad.

I think in TO its best for the whole team to make an offensive and defensive strat

In TO in my experience its best to Rush the other team leaving your ASE naked the second the match starts from there on you must have critical instant communication to advise and reroute your team of any up comming obstacles. Theres so many defensive team-2-team crossfires you can create as well. Flash bang infaltration. Also a fun strategy is called "all around the world" Where a team rushes together going every where around the map stopping and camping regularly and waiting the perfect time to strike the nest.

I dont get how theres more strategy in a non-objective mode Bleau?

So i choose TO.

Plus i hate TR.

Thanks, Grrrnade.

Gosh, I can't wait 'till I finally get a wireless internet router...I really wanna play SSBB, TCon, and MKWii online with my friends, and you guys.

To Unicorn Slayer (mainly).

I would amend my statement slightly in that TO can have more strategy, however it never does. In order for TO to have more strategy, a team would need to plan out what happens if a teammate dies. However, there are too many variables to actually plan that out ahead of time.

Where did they die, who killed them, where is the rest of the team, how close are they to either ASE, how close are you to either ASE, etc. TO requires a greater sense of teamwork and requires smart players. An individual person needs to know what the best course of action is at any given situation without everything being planned ahead of time.

In a way, TO requires greater individual strategy.

In TR, there are less variables for a person to consider. They need to kill and not be killed. Every variable falls under that one "prime directive." Smart players are still needed, however executing plans thought up ahead of time, of on the fly can make all the difference.

Also, as I've always stated, TO has a lot of luck in it. A single death can make or break a game. A little lag could be huge. Where you spawn, or where the enemy spawns can be the deciding factor in a capture, or failure. All of these events completely undermine a good strategy as you cannot account for them (not realistically at least).

Have said all of that, I will say that TR puts strategy to better use. All the planning in the world can be wasted in TO, however in TR it can win you the game.

Neoplayer2 wrote:

Thanks, Grrrnade.

Gosh, I can't wait 'till I finally get a wireless internet router...I really wanna play SSBB, TCon, and MKWii online with my friends, and you guys.

well that explains why you are creeping on this site so much and not actually playing with us.

Yeah, lol. Sorry about that, but I am looking forward to being able to PWN YOU ALL.

Thanks for having the time to reply.

But the things you explained as in what you do on the battlefeild are the basics. Now dont think im trying to boast or brag for you are a great team leader for having these things founded.
But i used to be in Cyber Athlete Amatuer League for CS 1.6, our team "swa" went 9-0 cal-o/8-1 cal-im/5-4 cal-m @ caleague.com (reference...there moving sites to UK).

Well you can see where my sense of objective based team modes are more strat full-filling mind set comes from.

You should also know that these are all deathmatch and not round waits. So strats are'nt really demanding when you can respawn and alert yourself of the past situation to overcome/defeat.

I'm curious as of how you call strats in the beginning of the match? [since its a team-For-All deathmatch TFA my new TR slang] (examples: 3-2 split, Nade Stacks "blank" <- Location, all to "blank" <- Location, and/or 4-1 split.)

Do you set up passive, defensive, or offensive crossfires?

Have you developed abreviations for common map points? (ex: Lower, upper, mid, Bannana, Squeky, DD, Ramp, closet, ...ect [just some ones from CS 1.6])

Whould love to know how you run stuff out-of-the-box and not necessities...because i would love to join when i get a wired connection and be your TO strat maker.

Well, you think about it because i have team objective based mode expereince in league tournys with 50'000, 25,000, 5,000 dollar rewards...while GB on the other hand....aw i wont go there.

But i would love to see The Conduit 2 mak`n it to cal (caleague.com)

Yeah, many of my points are basic, but that is what people were arguing at the time I decided to create this thread. There are only a few people on this board that think deep enough into strategy to take it beyond the basics. Since you are one of them, I am always open to suggestions or strategies (TR or TO). You are a grand ol' flag.

Anyway, we have names for most places on the maps that we can refer to when needed. Not all have been standardized for our team, but we've played enough with each other to know what we are talking about.

If I am the one calling the shots, our team would always take a defensive stance at first (unless the power weapon is in play, in which case we need to control that. It is not for the sake of this conversation). Since we have constant radar, I have my team take up "counter" positions to see what their team wild so. I feel it is most important to take a better position at the beginning over rushing in. There are key spots on each map I like to take, they very slightly with the weapon set.

We really do not set up crossfires due to how this game is played. With radar and how strong each weapon can be, the closest thing we get to a crossfire is not standing together so they cannot rush us both as their back will always be to one.

It find it works best to divide the other team. Many times they will send one person around to flank, and he usually becomes my target.

Frankly, we have not played a team strong enough to need to retreat very often. There are a few times I've told someone to fall back, but that is easier said than done in this game. It is usually better to make them think you are prepared to kill the entire team and stall while your teammate re-spawns and catches up. In TR, if you take someone out with you as you die, you are staying even so retreat is not needed.

Also, the only map that we don't have great names for locations in Complex due to having three levels and us never taking the time to define the ground floor and upper/top floor. That is what I use, but it is not standard.

Nice strats