I have been involved in close to 600 warzone games. In each and every one of the games my team has won, it’s because of a balance of capturing points, eliminating the bosses and eliminating the enemy Spartans. In all of those games, I have found that is it crucial that a team capture the nearest armory to their core, then capture the center point. Why does that concept escape most players? I recently played with a gamer who tried his hardest to sound like a pro gamer. He argued with me that you capture the two armories and go for the bosses. I refused to agree with him and tried in earnest to capture the garage in A.R.C… Needless to say, the rest of the team listened to this gamer and we wound up losing our core and the game at a score of 1000 - 45. It was humiliating and I never heard a “peep” from the gamer afterwards although he tried to ridicule me during the game. Why is it so difficulty to understand strategy? It seems everyone is content with playing “team death match” on the warzone maps. I know it’s about fun, I do. You’d have to admit that although it’s intended to be fun, it does have a competitive edge to it when played right and your personal profile reaps the benefit when the game is played effectively as a team and not a bunch of Spartans running around for points. All I say is PTO!!!
i get what your saying and I’ve had it happen to me alot and it sucks and the worst part is…how is the team I’m on supposed win when half if not all my team,every single team I get they CANT DRIVE lol
> 2533274822062492;1:
> I have been involved in close to 600 warzone games. In each and every one of the games my team has won, it’s because of a balance of capturing points, eliminating the bosses and eliminating the enemy Spartans. In all of those games, I have found that is it crucial that a team capture the nearest armory to their core, then capture the center point. Why does that concept escape most players? I recently played with a gamer who tried his hardest to sound like a pro gamer. He argued with me that you capture the two armories and go for the bosses. I refused to agree with him and tried in earnest to capture the garage in A.R.C… Needless to say, the rest of the team listened to this gamer and we wound up losing our core and the game at a score of 1000 - 45. It was humiliating and I never heard a “peep” from the gamer afterwards although he tried to ridicule me during the game. Why is it so difficulty to understand strategy? It seems everyone is content with playing “team death match” on the warzone maps. I know it’s about fun, I do. You’d have to admit that although it’s intended to be fun, it does have a competitive edge to it when played right and your personal profile reaps the benefit when the game is played effectively as a team and not a bunch of Spartans running around for points. All I say is PTO!!!
Wha? You only have a 49% warzone win rating…
> 2533274806195358;3:
> > 2533274822062492;1:
> > I have been involved in close to 600 warzone games. In each and every one of the games my team has won, it’s because of a balance of capturing points, eliminating the bosses and eliminating the enemy Spartans. In all of those games, I have found that is it crucial that a team capture the nearest armory to their core, then capture the center point. Why does that concept escape most players? I recently played with a gamer who tried his hardest to sound like a pro gamer. He argued with me that you capture the two armories and go for the bosses. I refused to agree with him and tried in earnest to capture the garage in A.R.C… Needless to say, the rest of the team listened to this gamer and we wound up losing our core and the game at a score of 1000 - 45. It was humiliating and I never heard a “peep” from the gamer afterwards although he tried to ridicule me during the game. Why is it so difficulty to understand strategy? It seems everyone is content with playing “team death match” on the warzone maps. I know it’s about fun, I do. You’d have to admit that although it’s intended to be fun, it does have a competitive edge to it when played right and your personal profile reaps the benefit when the game is played effectively as a team and not a bunch of Spartans running around for points. All I say is PTO!!!
>
>
> Wha? You only have a 49% warzone win rating…
OP is not saying that they won every game. They are saying out of all the games that have been won it was because of the following reasons.
PTO??? This means “Paid Time Off” to me.
> 2533274811965155;5:
> PTO??? This means “Paid Time Off” to me.
Play The Objective.
PTO??? This means page turn over.
Random players are the worst trash because all objective gametypes are slayer to them.
https://artfulanxiety.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/pdvd_056.jpg
>Every public player ever in regards to objective
Sorry it thought this was going to be a vacation thread.
> 2533274811965155;5:
> PTO??? This means “Paid Time Off” to me.
Me too. Must be an adult ‘work force’ thing.
“PTO” = Play the objective. Yes, it’s true my Warzone average is only at 49% now but I had it well above 50%. That percentage conveys to the amount of wins versus losses. If you have a good fireteam filled with players and/or friends you’re used to playing with, you will have a great chance of having a greater percentage of wins and thus a higher average. When you’re a “lone wolf”, you get into lobbies with players you do not know and have never played with. Each player has their own agenda, ie., killing bosses. While it is crucial for winning a point based game, it’s for naught if you kill many bosses and are forced to defend the core because you weren’t paying attention to all of the armories and center point being captured. Most of my losses stem from losing the core. My strategy is to capture the nearest armory then the center point depending on the map. As long as you have those two points, you can send out skirmishes to attack bosses and the opposing armory. When you have the center point, it’s like “shooting fish in a barrel” where the opposing team wants the center point so badly, they will commit to an attack and lose points as they are taken out during the attack. Remember, there are plenty of bosses to take out near both armories and at the center point. The points will always come but if you lose your core, well, it’s game over. As Agusta1 said, many players take on a Warzone game and treat it as a game of Slayer. Really, the game is for having fun regardless of how you play it. Maybe it’s just me and some of you will confirm that, but when I play a competitive game type, it’s because I want to win. Yes, I only have a 49% win rating but if you look at my stats, my KD and KDA are very high. Those two stats are very important. Not many people realize that if you have a low KD, you are getting killed more frequently during the game and giving the opposing team more points. I know some of you don’t want to hear it but I liken this to Battlefield 4 and the ticket system. The more kills a team suffers, the more tickets a team loses. The game is lost when you lose all of your tickets. Anyway, these are my thoughts. What are yours?
Well that is a legit strategy and is really only viable on ARC. If you manage to capture the enemy team armory you basically block them from spawning close to garage for the capture and you block them from getting just about every boss on the map. If you have a coordinated team it leads to a quick and easy victory, but if you have a bunch of clutzes it will back fire
> 2533274806195358;3:
> > 2533274822062492;1:
> > I have been involved in close to 600 warzone games. In each and every one of the games my team has won, it’s because of a balance of capturing points, eliminating the bosses and eliminating the enemy Spartans. In all of those games, I have found that is it crucial that a team capture the nearest armory to their core, then capture the center point. Why does that concept escape most players? I recently played with a gamer who tried his hardest to sound like a pro gamer. He argued with me that you capture the two armories and go for the bosses. I refused to agree with him and tried in earnest to capture the garage in A.R.C… Needless to say, the rest of the team listened to this gamer and we wound up losing our core and the game at a score of 1000 - 45. It was humiliating and I never heard a “peep” from the gamer afterwards although he tried to ridicule me during the game. Why is it so difficulty to understand strategy? It seems everyone is content with playing “team death match” on the warzone maps. I know it’s about fun, I do. You’d have to admit that although it’s intended to be fun, it does have a competitive edge to it when played right and your personal profile reaps the benefit when the game is played effectively as a team and not a bunch of Spartans running around for points. All I say is PTO!!!
>
>
> Wha? You only have a 49% warzone win rating…
Haha, that’s exactly how I read his introduction sentence initially as well and proceeded to check his play history. He’s just referring to the games that he did win.
> 2535450449120712;6:
> > 2533274811965155;5:
> > PTO??? This means “Paid Time Off” to me.
>
>
> Play The Objective.
A worldwide acronym for paid time off. Spell out the words OP…
> 2533274822062492;11:
> “PTO” = Play the objective. Yes, it’s true my Warzone average is only at 49% now but I had it well above 50%. That percentage conveys to the amount of wins versus losses. If you have a good fireteam filled with players and/or friends you’re used to playing with, you will have a great chance of having a greater percentage of wins and thus a higher average. When you’re a “lone wolf”, you get into lobbies with players you do not know and have never played with. Each player has their own agenda, ie., killing bosses. While it is crucial for winning a point based game, it’s for naught if you kill many bosses and are forced to defend the core because you weren’t paying attention to all of the armories and center point being captured. Most of my losses stem from losing the core. My strategy is to capture the nearest armory then the center point depending on the map. As long as you have those two points, you can send out skirmishes to attack bosses and the opposing armory. When you have the center point, it’s like “shooting fish in a barrel” where the opposing team wants the center point so badly, they will commit to an attack and lose points as they are taken out during the attack. Remember, there are plenty of bosses to take out near both armories and at the center point. The points will always come but if you lose your core, well, it’s game over. As Agusta1 said, many players take on a Warzone game and treat it as a game of Slayer. Really, the game is for having fun regardless of how you play it. Maybe it’s just me and some of you will confirm that, but when I play a competitive game type, it’s because I want to win. Yes, I only have a 49% win rating but if you look at my stats, my KD and KDA are very high. Those two stats are very important. Not many people realize that if you have a low KD, you are getting killed more frequently during the game and giving the opposing team more points. I know some of you don’t want to hear it but I liken this to Battlefield 4 and the ticket system. The more kills a team suffers, the more tickets a team loses. The game is lost when you lose all of your tickets. Anyway, these are my thoughts. What are yours?
KD is not important is warzone, sure you may be giving the other team points but I know people who went 2-14 but provided the most points to the team do to boss killings. KD does NOT matter in a objective gametype, playing the objective does. Again a player can possess a low KD but be the reason for winning a match, whether it be by carrying the flag in CTF, or by capturing a base/boss killing in warzone they still help the team. Dont flaunt your KD as if it shows anything cause it does not.
You strategy is not a new or genius strategy, its the most common and basic one to exist. You following the shop of the map to the letter and not being creative. Look at stormbreak for example, everyone does you strategy, why? cause thats the shape/flow of the map. Its not the only viable option its just the safest one. I have won matches by capturing the enemies armory before the center base was captured, you know what happened? The enemy team had to spawn at base giving my team time to capture the garage while the enemy tried to capture their armory back, in that time we captured garage and killed two bosses as well as a legendary. We then rushed tunnel and help their armory as well as pushing them into their own base making it easy for us to get boss kills. Its not a guaranteed strategy, its risky, if you fail to take that armory you basically lost the center base, but if you succeed your odds of winning the match increase exponentially.
Yeah, I’ll very likely use some PTO when Halo Wars 2 drops ^
Believe me, I feel your pain every time I get matched with a really dimwitted team. (which is like half my games at the very least)
At the same time, it’s worth noting (and I’ve said this in many other threads about Warzone balance) that there shouldn’t be a single winning strategy in Warzone. You should be able to find a strategy that you like and that works, to be sure, but it’s not a good thing that the number of viable strategies is so low, especially if the number is just one.
What if controlling both armories (but not the center base) gave an advantage to counter a team that holds up in the Spire or Fortress or wherever? They’re called armories after all right? Why not grant slightly increased REQ point accumulation (not rank-up speed, just point regeneration) to teams that hold both armories? Especially on maps where the center base is a vehicle spawn, this could prove to be a reasonable counter. Like: Hey, now the other team has the fortress and is bringing in tons of ghosts, well it’s a good thing my team has both armories, because now we can bring in anti-vehicle weapons faster.
What if holding your “home” armory (and nothing else) gave you an advantage that holding the opposing team’s armory didn’t? (your marines hold shotguns, as an idea) This might encourage players to defend their home armory more, especially in the early-game, and in turn make base-locking harder to do, (so it’s easier to push back towards garage and the second armory on ARC, for example) which simultaneously could reduce the amount of kill farming.
I agree with this - “I have found that is it crucial that a team capture the nearest armory to their core” But not necessarily about what base to take next . I think it greaty depends on the map. Take ARC for instance. I if you can get the little bases and can hold them. You can do fine. I’ve won a fair amount when my team did this. Because what happens is the enemy team just takes for granted they got the middle base so the leave it and go for bosses. Then the middle base gets taken, and we hold all three long enough to force spawns at their home base. From there they spend the rest of the match either defending their home base or trying to take back the base closest to their homebase. I could also give other scenarios and how they have played out depending on the maps. But bottom line if you only have one base, somebody at least one person much stay behind to defend it. I’ll take that duty unless I see somebody else doing it, then I’ll leave and join in hunting the bosses.
It is also very important to pay attention to what your teammates are doing. If nobody is protecting the base(excluding homebase), then man up and protect it. and the flipside is true. IF you have 4 or 5 people protecting the base. Man up and go after boss kills. I’ve lost plenty of games and it is usually because the entire team wants to either go and hold middle base the whole game and nobody will leave. OR the reverse, nobody is willing to stay behind to hold and keep at least one base.
Your strategy of taking the nearest Armory and going for the central base is a good one on some maps but less important on others. Your “pro gamer” failed only in trying to apply a strat that isn’t quite so effective on ARC, as the Garage gives better map control and access to bosses than the Armories on that particular map, which is ultimately what teams should be thinking about in addition to resources needed to hold points (as holding two bases will generally require more Spartans than holding one, meaning fewer are available for boss hunts).
On ARC and Stormbreak the central bases are set up in a way that the team that holds them can effectively block off whole portions of the map, preventing access to bosses and bases and hobbling the enemy team. With ARC the advantage is more in terms of boss access, as all of the 150 pt Legendary bosses spawn directly behind the central base. With Stormbreak the advantage is more about making it very difficult for the other team to get at the second Armory (and consequently the bosses that spawn near it) as they either have to more or less go directly through the heavily fortified Fortress or through the cave which can be turned into a chokepoint without too much effort.
On Apex and Noctus though, the Spire and Monument respectively are less important in terms of controlling the map and getting shots on bosses, which means that it is often a better tactical decision to try to hold the two side bases and double your base points, particularly if the opposing team is primarily focused on the central base.
On Apex , there are enough alternate ways around the map that you can get at Tankmaster Rok and Captain Hestro from the side bases without really having to deal with the Spire, and while the central base gives an advantage in terms of firing position on Warden Eternal, the mancannons on the Armories and snipers nest at home base mitigate it by allowing freshly spawned Spartans access to him within seconds. It is also possible for an Armory spawning team to lure him into cover in the rocks and caves in the center of the map, completely neutralizing the advantage that the Spire has in terms of firing position, a tactic that I’ve seen team employ, either intentionally or just out of a reasonable desire to engage from cover, quite frequently. Meanwhile each Armory gives virtually exclusive access to 50 pts of minor bosses (Banshee Raider and Ghost Maurauder), which obviously doubles if a team manages to hold both side bases, and the rest of the bosses can be reached easily without directly engaging with the Spire at all. It’s also fairly simple to rush through the caves between Armories while avoiding shots from the Spire, which makes taking both Armories a viable option.
On Noctus the central base is even less important. While it certainly can provide some good perches for sniper/DMR/BR fire, the circular and symmetrical design of the map means that it doesn’t really prevent access to either Garage very effectively and it is pretty easy to get at any of the bosses as long as you hold any base in addition to your Home. The circular design also makes the central point, in this case the Monument, vulnerable to attack from all sides. While it is difficult to take the Monument from an entrenched enemy team, and whoever gets it first usually holds it the whole game, it can also require a lot of effort and resources to defend. A big chunk of your team will need to spawn at Monument to hold it, as it will constantly be under attack from different angles, meaning you have fewer bodies to also hold a Garage or to head out after bosses. Comparatively, the Garages are each fairly easy to hold onto, requring fewer defenders, and they each give pretty much exclusive access to three minor bosses while providing quick routes to get shots on the Legendary ones (In fact, it could be argued that the Garages provide better angles for engaging with Pilot 'Dalamen). In this environment, an organized team can make a lot of hay out of capping and holding both Garages and only making a token effort at the Monument primarily intended to force their opponents to commit resources to defending it.
Sorry for the wall of text, the point is that different strategies are more effective on different bases. A team that always tries to cap one side and the central base can definitely find themselves outmaneuvered, especially on Apex and Noctus.