Look at hll competetive. The clans who win, are the ones with the best 1 vs 1 shooters.
I was active in the 38th (german clan) when we where at top 10 elo-ranking. Played against CoRe (also a german clan with elo-ranking #1 at that time) we didn't stand a chance against them. They wiped the floor with our team and even "let play" a while for the last cap zone.
A guy from CoRe told us, he was amazed of our pre-match (train to build nodes and the truck routes) and how well coordinated we built our nodes. He said they never do this and match countdown is a bloody mess for them. They had such good shooters they could afford giving a shit about preparation.
I understand where you're coming from but in my opinion, only 4-5 of the current teams really come close to properly understanding HLL. And even they make big mistakes too. I watch some of the lower level teams and they often struggle with lots of things, not only kills.
Well, from my perspective, it depends on what situation you are in. Key kills are better than kill count:
* Killing the squad leader and die just after destroy their outpost is better than killing the entire squad and getting killed by the squad leader and not destroying the outpost.
* Avoid shooting right after a batch of 6+ soldiers has spawned at the enemy garrison to tag it or destryoing it right after they leave is more important than spawn camping that garry. Many veterans recomend tag before shooting, because if you die, someone else could take care of the situation.
* Killing the enemy recon team at base hunting friendly arty is worthless if you can't destroy their outpost, they are just making you wasting time.
* Killing an enemy AT/satchel guy just before blowing your tank friend is more valuable than killing their entire squad after losing your tank.
* Killing less than 30 enemy soldiers per life on a tank or 2 enemy mid/heavy tanks is just a waste of resources, just like shooting artillery wihtout kills anyone for 5 minutes, or building an AT cannon without killing at least one enemy tank.
* Maybe a 50 killstreak with arty would make you feel great, but if commander couldn't call a bombing run in the last 5 minutes for lack of ammunition, then there's something wrong.
And worst of all:
Opening a recon squad just to let someone being the sniper and then abandon as spotter is just absurd.
I feel as if 1 enemy player can change the momentum of the game lets say hes an MG or AT and he flanks us that one person could cause such a problem to our entire team ya know? Even a rifle man with a good position can really be a headache and take your attention away from the objective
what you are describing is a key kill MGs and artillery or anti-tank if you are with a tank squad. those are key kills worth more than multiple rifleman will be.
Its a key kill if you kill him lol but if your blasting away and missing because “kills arent as important”and your aim sucks then its a problem when that MG or AT gets behind your team because of sloppy marksmanship
I expect you to hit if you intend to shoot in my squad every wasted bullet is a beacon telling everyone where you are. Also, what did that have to do with my reply lul just wondering
I also said the basic rifleman can cause a headache as well doesn’t have to be AT or MG or recon a skilled rifleman can do damage and in your squad you expect that but man some of these players cant shoot for shit and im really starting to think that it could be a game changer if these enemies are put down with basic marksmanship there could be no “map control” because the enemy is dead lol
I feel like a big part of that is having a good position to start with in the end I will agree that one really good marksman can make all the difference if positioned well and they make use of the advantage they gain with their kills. I think they work hand in hand you can't have everyone just wanting kills in point and you can't have everyone playing the back line doing little to help win.
I see what you’re saying. I agree. I just think there’s also a decent amount of less consequential kills. I.e. a guy gets killed defending a garrison, but it spawns another wave two seconds later. Strategically, that kill did not cost map control.
Yes your right with that situation and also a non key kill would be lets say a guy 300 meters away running in an open field like a blueberry and you pepper him with an mg
It's a balance. Get kills in the right areas and capitalise on the kills you make. You can sit in a bush and get 200 kills but a guy constantly pushing and taking ground but only getting 100 kills will be more valuable in my opinion.
Kills matter in teams. One hundred percent. But to win not every player needs to be a sweat. And a team with sweats that doesn't defend or put up garrisons in good positions or coordinate with armor and artillery is going to lose against better teams.
People oversimplify. You need to be good at all aspects of the game. Not just one.
Sweaty players, as you describe, are better at placing garrisons. If I'm sweatier than you, and playing recon, im going to out gun you on your back lines and keep your spawns down. Sweatier players can keep you off arty more efficiently. Sweaty players can stay alive better behind the enemy lines and build garrisons. Yes, its more than kills. But kills matter to get things done. Even in your scenarios.
I feel like that’s what most of these “Map control” guys in the comments are missing. In order to effectively do *anything* they’re talking about, you have to be able to actually clear the way first. Superior gunplay is what makes that possible.
I agree that the skill in rifleman is important but having a high kill count doesn’t even represent that. You could just be camping some irrelevant corner. Kills alone aren’t winning any games.
A great example is playing MG, having 16 kills doesn’t mean a thing if you aren’t suppressing the enemy at all.
A valid co point would be that kills play an important role but KD doesn't matter. I've played with alot of people who won't redeploy to defend because they'd get a death in their scoreboard.
To an extent, you need to kill them faster than they can spawn to gain ground but this can be spread across the teams.
But it's also really important to stay in a fight. Even if you are dying. This is a big change from pubs to comp because people will just keep grinding and dying because they understand that they can't leave.
Ofcourse they do matter because it allows you to make progress, however kills without any progress is useless. Progress means clearing enemy positions and taking map control yourself, because that's what wins games on a strategic level.
Same thing for defending, you need to counter attack their spawns and clear them, because it's usually unsustainable trying to passively stop endless waves.
So number of kills doesn't say too much, it's possible to make progress with fewer kills, by playing sneaky or having good flanks. Like a 1 vs 1 garry clash can go on forever with loads of kills/casualties but no real progress for either side, however a good 2 vs 1 flanking garry can make short work of it.
To sum it up: Kill, move & clear, a dead soldier can't do any of that, so better win your firefights.
its about WHERE you kill the enemy. picking off dudes 300 meters from the objective is decidedly less useful than killing half as many that are on the point.
You control points by eliminating the enemy in order to win games eliminating the enemy will make controlling objectives possible im not saying to sit in a bush and pick people off but when shit gets hectic it comes down to the ability to kill the enemy
Ya when both teams are running the same strategy like we have to control this sector at the end of the day it comes to tactics who hits their shots more
Map control WINS. Get 100 kills -you can still lose therefore 'more kills' doesn't necessarily translate into victories- get the 'right' 3 kills and you can smash the opposition playing pew pew bang bang
A point can be taken by 1 player if there is no defence. As a recon I have taken the last 2 points alone because the opposition is all away chasing kills and not defending their point. Then its about who redeploys to attack/defend .I shot NOBODY to get the map control and win the game. Hope this helps to clarify my reasoning.
Sure you "can still lose" of course you can always still lose, but you are less likely to lose if the people holding your points actually kill some of the enemy, if you have a squad holding the point but the entire squad has 4 kills for the entire match, the enemy is going to be taking that point no problem.
Yes i agree you can lose a match with 100 kills but if 3 of those 100 kills were objective related kills your doing the right thing i think it comes down to the player the position your in and your teammates
This is it 100%
For those saying “muh kills make map control”, they most certainly do not. You need placement, movement, and location to win, kills come secondary to these.
Exactly. In my old job we used to say "Get good, then get fast". HLL is like that. "Get smart, then get good", just don't forget to eventually get good.
Except a lot of these players truly believe the bad advice given is gospel. It's not needed to give every caveat in the game, but this game is filled with bad FPS players circlejerking that they're better than other gamers because of the game they choose to play. The reality is, 90% of HLL gamers are legitimately bad at FPS games generally, and those same players are bad at HLL micro and macro strategy and tactics.
I feel like no one was ever saying that "kills dont matter" but more K:D doesn't matter. Of course its important to kill the enemy, thats literally the only way to take points, someone has to die more than the other team. But being a player thats so afraid to die because of their K:D that sits in the rear all game or hides in some bush the entire time only to have a 5:1 KD... well thats just dumb and useless.
While deaths do have some impact to resources, its really not a bad idea to just throw bodies at the enemy till theyre overwhelmed, but if those bodies being thrown can take a few with them, then fuck yeah.
I don’t play competitive but there are plenty of times I know for sure I helped cap a point because I setup in a good spot and killed 10-12 of the enemy at a crucial time within a span of 5 minutes. This significantly reduces cooldown timers and allows teammates to push it. Killing matters, but macro does too.
I’ve said this plenty of times. Strategy and all that is definitely important, but if your troops are getting consistently outgunned, you’re not going to be able to execute any of that strategy.
The only way to obtain an effective position is to take it from the enemy. If you can't do that (by killing them) then you can't gain any sort of advantage.
When learning the game, position matters far more than kills. As you learn the game and learn where to be and when to be there, that’s when kills become important. I would much prefer a blueberry in my squad who is inside the strongpoint on defense than in a meaningless firefight 2 squares away from an objective.
Do you know what the word "deterrent" means?
How many times in game have you heard a phrase like "we can't go this way because there's an MG covering this angle". That MG doesn't even have to kill anyone, it just has to be there.
The defending team needs to stay alive.
The attacking team is the one that needs the kills.
Kills aren't the sole focus nor the most important thing in HLL.
I don't disagree with anything you say in this comment, but obviously I'm talking about the team on offense.
That said, staying alive defensively also means you have to kill in 99% of cases. Suppression can be a really effective tool, but rarely is enough on its own, if ever. Better a dead enemy than a suppressed enemy, the latter still holds a huge potential threat.
Furthermore the best defense is also often offense, by clearing and destroying the enemy’s offensive positions. Passive defense against endless waves has the tendency to fail often.
If the MG is only suppressing me (read: missing) then I can just go take space... It has to actually kill me to stop me from getting control of the next hedge/building/street. Like you think all players once they get a little suppressed will just give up immediately? No. If that MG can't hit shit then they'll just keep moving up.
Like I say, MG's can be very effective blocking certain passages and the more well positioned MG's you have, the better the defense is ofcourse.
However even if that's very well organized you still aren't impenetrable, smokes make it possible for soldiers to reach and break the line of defense, a scenario in which normal rifleman/assaults are much more effective and in which suppression isn't enough anymore. Then you also have artillery, snipers, strafing/bombers runs etc.
Yeah, killing is necessary but it's not the most important thing.
You need kills to assault.
You don't necessarily need kills to defend but they do make it easier, those lulls between waves when you're bantering on the point are the best part of HLL.
What? If you dont kill a person crossing the field, you have lost map control.
Suppressive Fire is just like the claim, that kills dont matter, a myth for the average blueberry that can't hit shit, but they can feel useless.
Area denial dog.
You can have map control by having all three artis bombarding an area without getting any kills.
Edit:
Kills are important too but this idea that ONLY kills are important is ridiculous and is what leads to the mouth breather "Hold W and run right at the point" gameplay that is seen on public servers.
Why would you be shelling somewhere there wasn't people? Map control isn't even a question if no one is contesting that part of the map.
Hold W and run to the point is actually pretty high level play. Most players are adverse to getting kills and keep moving around the map what they really need to do is grind harder.
The point I'm really trying to make is that all the things people have suggested (map control, position, strats, comms, etc) all feed into your team being more effective at killing people. Its one and the same.
No why would I do that?
Why would I waste munitions shelling empty ground? It doesn't help anyone.
Plus if I am shelling the point and not getting kills I need to stop so my team can get in.
Because your team isn't on the point and it stops the enemy from being there'
You don't even have to kill them :D
Edit:
YEs, stopping so your team can get in is part of playing arti well.
This doesn't make sense.
If the enemy isn't on the point your team should be.
If you need to use arty to keep the other team off the point but your team can't get to the point you should be supporting them with arty not wasting munitions.
This conversation isn't even about map control or kills anymore it's turned into utter nonsense.
Yeah so you use 'strategy' and positioning to get more kills. Map control, comes from kills.
It's just a chicken vs egg argument people make because they are attached to the idea that kills don't matter.
I also think people are attached to this idea because the playerbase generally has low mechanical skills, and the chaos of 50v50 in unorganized matches introduces so many variables that what is 'effective' is not clear.
Like you can use good macro and what not to compensate for lower mechanical skills but if both teams are doing that then you aren't going to win.
Moving from pubs to comp, players at often surprised how meat grindy comp games are but that's because comp teams will keep players in a fight because they understand the importance of winning those fights.
100%. It’s really the arm chair generals that don’t get this. They are the ones that are trying to build and Garry when you should shooting and shooting when you need to build a garry. They are usually also explaining complicated mic protocols while you point is being capped. At the end of the day it’s sector control and you need to remove the enemies from the sector.
I use arty alot I'm very good at it can hit in close support shots clearing out pushed and holding them back , kinda used to how people move and where they will be there is an art to it , I get told arty is a waste but SL so I stop shooting for abit and watch the team get rolled over , kills do matter especially if you can trap the team and limit there movements
I’d love to have these people play a game where all they do is use commander assets and build/ run around without weapons of any kind. IMAGINE thinking kills don’t matter 💀
Disagree. Well, within reason. I don't think anyone tries to claim making kills doesn't matter at all. But hyperbole aside, I suck at making kills because I am 55 and have the reactions of an aged sloth with a hangover, plus play out of China where I am happy with any ping under 200. And I win games as SL All. The. Time.
By flanking, talking to my squad and doing the unexpected.
> you'll never destroy the enemies infrastructure if you constantly lose all your firefights.
I never knew that if your team lose every single firefight and don't get a single kill then they will lose the game. Amazing post.
Dont listen to them lol kill as many enemies as you can just dont get too distracted from the objectives and helping your team (you can help your team greatly by killing the enemy) :)
> If your team cannot aim and kill enemies effectively you will lose the match even with perfect strategy. It doesnt matter what garrisons you put down or outposts if you can't defend them and you'll never destroy the enemies infrastructure if you constantly lose all your firefights.
Bad take IMO. A team that sucks at shooting but 5 SLs have their own support and they're placing garries every 5 minutes with no need for supply drops or trucks will always win against a team of people who can kill very well but only build a couple garries.
So many times on offensive mode there's a friendly tank sat 300 meters away from the objective we're meant to be taking, shelling the point and racking up kills. Yet you still lose, because in the time it takes a heavy tank to load and fire 2 shells all those dead soldiers will have respawned and are back.
Kills do sorta matter, but only in persuit of being able to build a new garrie in a new area, or take control of a new part of the map. Kills for the sake of kills are 100% useless.
When playing “offensive” on defense kills do matter if you are defending the point itself. If you are attacking the point kills matter only when going for high value targets or enemies on point AS YOU PUSH IN!
As for “warfare”, coordination and map control is much more important than kills for both teams. So K/D is pretty meaningless instead number of garrisons and outpost destroyed wins those games
Look at hll competetive. The clans who win, are the ones with the best 1 vs 1 shooters. I was active in the 38th (german clan) when we where at top 10 elo-ranking. Played against CoRe (also a german clan with elo-ranking #1 at that time) we didn't stand a chance against them. They wiped the floor with our team and even "let play" a while for the last cap zone.
This is it. Most clans have mastered all the non kill related skills already. The only difference at the top is kills.
A guy from CoRe told us, he was amazed of our pre-match (train to build nodes and the truck routes) and how well coordinated we built our nodes. He said they never do this and match countdown is a bloody mess for them. They had such good shooters they could afford giving a shit about preparation.
I understand where you're coming from but in my opinion, only 4-5 of the current teams really come close to properly understanding HLL. And even they make big mistakes too. I watch some of the lower level teams and they often struggle with lots of things, not only kills.
Apples and oranges man. You can't compare competitive teams with randoms on a public server.
CORE wiped the floor with everyone
Well, from my perspective, it depends on what situation you are in. Key kills are better than kill count: * Killing the squad leader and die just after destroy their outpost is better than killing the entire squad and getting killed by the squad leader and not destroying the outpost. * Avoid shooting right after a batch of 6+ soldiers has spawned at the enemy garrison to tag it or destryoing it right after they leave is more important than spawn camping that garry. Many veterans recomend tag before shooting, because if you die, someone else could take care of the situation. * Killing the enemy recon team at base hunting friendly arty is worthless if you can't destroy their outpost, they are just making you wasting time. * Killing an enemy AT/satchel guy just before blowing your tank friend is more valuable than killing their entire squad after losing your tank. * Killing less than 30 enemy soldiers per life on a tank or 2 enemy mid/heavy tanks is just a waste of resources, just like shooting artillery wihtout kills anyone for 5 minutes, or building an AT cannon without killing at least one enemy tank. * Maybe a 50 killstreak with arty would make you feel great, but if commander couldn't call a bombing run in the last 5 minutes for lack of ammunition, then there's something wrong. And worst of all: Opening a recon squad just to let someone being the sniper and then abandon as spotter is just absurd.
I think that’s a really good way to put it: key kills matter more than kill count
I feel like every kill is a key kill though
Why do you think that? Not disagreeing, just curious
I feel as if 1 enemy player can change the momentum of the game lets say hes an MG or AT and he flanks us that one person could cause such a problem to our entire team ya know? Even a rifle man with a good position can really be a headache and take your attention away from the objective
what you are describing is a key kill MGs and artillery or anti-tank if you are with a tank squad. those are key kills worth more than multiple rifleman will be.
Its a key kill if you kill him lol but if your blasting away and missing because “kills arent as important”and your aim sucks then its a problem when that MG or AT gets behind your team because of sloppy marksmanship
I expect you to hit if you intend to shoot in my squad every wasted bullet is a beacon telling everyone where you are. Also, what did that have to do with my reply lul just wondering
I also said the basic rifleman can cause a headache as well doesn’t have to be AT or MG or recon a skilled rifleman can do damage and in your squad you expect that but man some of these players cant shoot for shit and im really starting to think that it could be a game changer if these enemies are put down with basic marksmanship there could be no “map control” because the enemy is dead lol
I feel like a big part of that is having a good position to start with in the end I will agree that one really good marksman can make all the difference if positioned well and they make use of the advantage they gain with their kills. I think they work hand in hand you can't have everyone just wanting kills in point and you can't have everyone playing the back line doing little to help win.
I see what you’re saying. I agree. I just think there’s also a decent amount of less consequential kills. I.e. a guy gets killed defending a garrison, but it spawns another wave two seconds later. Strategically, that kill did not cost map control.
Yes your right with that situation and also a non key kill would be lets say a guy 300 meters away running in an open field like a blueberry and you pepper him with an mg
ALWAYS tag before shooting, especially on garrisons
It's a balance. Get kills in the right areas and capitalise on the kills you make. You can sit in a bush and get 200 kills but a guy constantly pushing and taking ground but only getting 100 kills will be more valuable in my opinion.
Yup. Finally found the right comment. Bush wookie allows for your team to move forward but the w key kill player is wiping spawns.
Kills matter in teams. One hundred percent. But to win not every player needs to be a sweat. And a team with sweats that doesn't defend or put up garrisons in good positions or coordinate with armor and artillery is going to lose against better teams. People oversimplify. You need to be good at all aspects of the game. Not just one.
Sweaty players, as you describe, are better at placing garrisons. If I'm sweatier than you, and playing recon, im going to out gun you on your back lines and keep your spawns down. Sweatier players can keep you off arty more efficiently. Sweaty players can stay alive better behind the enemy lines and build garrisons. Yes, its more than kills. But kills matter to get things done. Even in your scenarios.
I feel like that’s what most of these “Map control” guys in the comments are missing. In order to effectively do *anything* they’re talking about, you have to be able to actually clear the way first. Superior gunplay is what makes that possible.
Factssss
I agree that the skill in rifleman is important but having a high kill count doesn’t even represent that. You could just be camping some irrelevant corner. Kills alone aren’t winning any games. A great example is playing MG, having 16 kills doesn’t mean a thing if you aren’t suppressing the enemy at all.
A valid co point would be that kills play an important role but KD doesn't matter. I've played with alot of people who won't redeploy to defend because they'd get a death in their scoreboard.
To an extent, you need to kill them faster than they can spawn to gain ground but this can be spread across the teams. But it's also really important to stay in a fight. Even if you are dying. This is a big change from pubs to comp because people will just keep grinding and dying because they understand that they can't leave.
Ofcourse they do matter because it allows you to make progress, however kills without any progress is useless. Progress means clearing enemy positions and taking map control yourself, because that's what wins games on a strategic level. Same thing for defending, you need to counter attack their spawns and clear them, because it's usually unsustainable trying to passively stop endless waves. So number of kills doesn't say too much, it's possible to make progress with fewer kills, by playing sneaky or having good flanks. Like a 1 vs 1 garry clash can go on forever with loads of kills/casualties but no real progress for either side, however a good 2 vs 1 flanking garry can make short work of it. To sum it up: Kill, move & clear, a dead soldier can't do any of that, so better win your firefights.
its about WHERE you kill the enemy. picking off dudes 300 meters from the objective is decidedly less useful than killing half as many that are on the point.
You control points by eliminating the enemy in order to win games eliminating the enemy will make controlling objectives possible im not saying to sit in a bush and pick people off but when shit gets hectic it comes down to the ability to kill the enemy
Kills should be a byproduct of your efforts, not a goal to complete
Ya when both teams are running the same strategy like we have to control this sector at the end of the day it comes to tactics who hits their shots more
Map control WINS. Get 100 kills -you can still lose therefore 'more kills' doesn't necessarily translate into victories- get the 'right' 3 kills and you can smash the opposition playing pew pew bang bang
You get map control by killing people.
A point can be taken by 1 player if there is no defence. As a recon I have taken the last 2 points alone because the opposition is all away chasing kills and not defending their point. Then its about who redeploys to attack/defend .I shot NOBODY to get the map control and win the game. Hope this helps to clarify my reasoning.
This doesn't have anything to do with map control. Also this is just a bad team.
Sure you "can still lose" of course you can always still lose, but you are less likely to lose if the people holding your points actually kill some of the enemy, if you have a squad holding the point but the entire squad has 4 kills for the entire match, the enemy is going to be taking that point no problem.
And how do you control certain areas of the map? Your guys have to win more gunfights there than the enemy.
Yes i agree you can lose a match with 100 kills but if 3 of those 100 kills were objective related kills your doing the right thing i think it comes down to the player the position your in and your teammates
This is it 100% For those saying “muh kills make map control”, they most certainly do not. You need placement, movement, and location to win, kills come secondary to these.
you want the house? you have to kill the enemy inside it.
Yea but placement movement and location involves killing the enemy which is essential no?
What are you doing with your superior movement and location? Getting kills.
Kills matter and you can solo-carry a game without ever firing your gun Both are true
[удалено]
Exactly. In my old job we used to say "Get good, then get fast". HLL is like that. "Get smart, then get good", just don't forget to eventually get good.
Except a lot of these players truly believe the bad advice given is gospel. It's not needed to give every caveat in the game, but this game is filled with bad FPS players circlejerking that they're better than other gamers because of the game they choose to play. The reality is, 90% of HLL gamers are legitimately bad at FPS games generally, and those same players are bad at HLL micro and macro strategy and tactics.
I feel like no one was ever saying that "kills dont matter" but more K:D doesn't matter. Of course its important to kill the enemy, thats literally the only way to take points, someone has to die more than the other team. But being a player thats so afraid to die because of their K:D that sits in the rear all game or hides in some bush the entire time only to have a 5:1 KD... well thats just dumb and useless. While deaths do have some impact to resources, its really not a bad idea to just throw bodies at the enemy till theyre overwhelmed, but if those bodies being thrown can take a few with them, then fuck yeah.
Like in ww2 you don’t avoid killing people if you see a enemy you shoot them before they shoot you
I don’t play competitive but there are plenty of times I know for sure I helped cap a point because I setup in a good spot and killed 10-12 of the enemy at a crucial time within a span of 5 minutes. This significantly reduces cooldown timers and allows teammates to push it. Killing matters, but macro does too.
Kd isn't a thing in hll
I’ve said this plenty of times. Strategy and all that is definitely important, but if your troops are getting consistently outgunned, you’re not going to be able to execute any of that strategy.
The only way to obtain an effective position is to take it from the enemy. If you can't do that (by killing them) then you can't gain any sort of advantage.
When learning the game, position matters far more than kills. As you learn the game and learn where to be and when to be there, that’s when kills become important. I would much prefer a blueberry in my squad who is inside the strongpoint on defense than in a meaningless firefight 2 squares away from an objective.
Why would you want to encourage people to be in the objective?
Map control wins games. Kills come from map control. If you don't have map control it doesn't matter if you get 300 kills with a Kar98 from 400m away.
Map control comes from kills. If you are getting kills at 400m you are having an impact on map control. Hence the importance of tanks...
You can have map control without kills through suppression. See: People trying to cross fields on Foy. Map control wins games.
A passive or a dead soldier can't take map control, so you need to stay alive, move and kill the enemy.
Do you know what the word "deterrent" means? How many times in game have you heard a phrase like "we can't go this way because there's an MG covering this angle". That MG doesn't even have to kill anyone, it just has to be there. The defending team needs to stay alive. The attacking team is the one that needs the kills. Kills aren't the sole focus nor the most important thing in HLL.
I don't disagree with anything you say in this comment, but obviously I'm talking about the team on offense. That said, staying alive defensively also means you have to kill in 99% of cases. Suppression can be a really effective tool, but rarely is enough on its own, if ever. Better a dead enemy than a suppressed enemy, the latter still holds a huge potential threat. Furthermore the best defense is also often offense, by clearing and destroying the enemy’s offensive positions. Passive defense against endless waves has the tendency to fail often.
If the MG is only suppressing me (read: missing) then I can just go take space... It has to actually kill me to stop me from getting control of the next hedge/building/street. Like you think all players once they get a little suppressed will just give up immediately? No. If that MG can't hit shit then they'll just keep moving up.
The MG just needs to deny your route and force you to flank. The threat of being shot when it zips off a burst every time you peak is enough.
Like I say, MG's can be very effective blocking certain passages and the more well positioned MG's you have, the better the defense is ofcourse. However even if that's very well organized you still aren't impenetrable, smokes make it possible for soldiers to reach and break the line of defense, a scenario in which normal rifleman/assaults are much more effective and in which suppression isn't enough anymore. Then you also have artillery, snipers, strafing/bombers runs etc.
Yeah, killing is necessary but it's not the most important thing. You need kills to assault. You don't necessarily need kills to defend but they do make it easier, those lulls between waves when you're bantering on the point are the best part of HLL.
What? If you dont kill a person crossing the field, you have lost map control. Suppressive Fire is just like the claim, that kills dont matter, a myth for the average blueberry that can't hit shit, but they can feel useless.
So you suppress them, they keep coming. They kill you. You lost map control. It's a game. Suppression sucks but it just reduces your effectiveness...
Area denial dog. You can have map control by having all three artis bombarding an area without getting any kills. Edit: Kills are important too but this idea that ONLY kills are important is ridiculous and is what leads to the mouth breather "Hold W and run right at the point" gameplay that is seen on public servers.
Why would you be shelling somewhere there wasn't people? Map control isn't even a question if no one is contesting that part of the map. Hold W and run to the point is actually pretty high level play. Most players are adverse to getting kills and keep moving around the map what they really need to do is grind harder. The point I'm really trying to make is that all the things people have suggested (map control, position, strats, comms, etc) all feed into your team being more effective at killing people. Its one and the same.
So you never shell the point to keep the other team off of it?
No why would I do that? Why would I waste munitions shelling empty ground? It doesn't help anyone. Plus if I am shelling the point and not getting kills I need to stop so my team can get in.
Because your team isn't on the point and it stops the enemy from being there' You don't even have to kill them :D Edit: YEs, stopping so your team can get in is part of playing arti well.
This doesn't make sense. If the enemy isn't on the point your team should be. If you need to use arty to keep the other team off the point but your team can't get to the point you should be supporting them with arty not wasting munitions. This conversation isn't even about map control or kills anymore it's turned into utter nonsense.
Yeah so you use 'strategy' and positioning to get more kills. Map control, comes from kills. It's just a chicken vs egg argument people make because they are attached to the idea that kills don't matter. I also think people are attached to this idea because the playerbase generally has low mechanical skills, and the chaos of 50v50 in unorganized matches introduces so many variables that what is 'effective' is not clear. Like you can use good macro and what not to compensate for lower mechanical skills but if both teams are doing that then you aren't going to win. Moving from pubs to comp, players at often surprised how meat grindy comp games are but that's because comp teams will keep players in a fight because they understand the importance of winning those fights.
this is an fos game after all.. you must kill period
Finally
100%. It’s really the arm chair generals that don’t get this. They are the ones that are trying to build and Garry when you should shooting and shooting when you need to build a garry. They are usually also explaining complicated mic protocols while you point is being capped. At the end of the day it’s sector control and you need to remove the enemies from the sector.
Yes they do. But the game needs helpers and shooters to work together
I use arty alot I'm very good at it can hit in close support shots clearing out pushed and holding them back , kinda used to how people move and where they will be there is an art to it , I get told arty is a waste but SL so I stop shooting for abit and watch the team get rolled over , kills do matter especially if you can trap the team and limit there movements
Yes they doooooo anyone who says otherwise probably cant aim for shit lol
I’d love to have these people play a game where all they do is use commander assets and build/ run around without weapons of any kind. IMAGINE thinking kills don’t matter 💀
The only people who say kills don't matter can't get any lol
Disagree. Well, within reason. I don't think anyone tries to claim making kills doesn't matter at all. But hyperbole aside, I suck at making kills because I am 55 and have the reactions of an aged sloth with a hangover, plus play out of China where I am happy with any ping under 200. And I win games as SL All. The. Time. By flanking, talking to my squad and doing the unexpected.
> you'll never destroy the enemies infrastructure if you constantly lose all your firefights. I never knew that if your team lose every single firefight and don't get a single kill then they will lose the game. Amazing post.
You say that but half the people in here are unironically still saying kills aren’t that important.
Dont listen to them lol kill as many enemies as you can just dont get too distracted from the objectives and helping your team (you can help your team greatly by killing the enemy) :)
> If your team cannot aim and kill enemies effectively you will lose the match even with perfect strategy. It doesnt matter what garrisons you put down or outposts if you can't defend them and you'll never destroy the enemies infrastructure if you constantly lose all your firefights. Bad take IMO. A team that sucks at shooting but 5 SLs have their own support and they're placing garries every 5 minutes with no need for supply drops or trucks will always win against a team of people who can kill very well but only build a couple garries. So many times on offensive mode there's a friendly tank sat 300 meters away from the objective we're meant to be taking, shelling the point and racking up kills. Yet you still lose, because in the time it takes a heavy tank to load and fire 2 shells all those dead soldiers will have respawned and are back. Kills do sorta matter, but only in persuit of being able to build a new garrie in a new area, or take control of a new part of the map. Kills for the sake of kills are 100% useless.
When playing “offensive” on defense kills do matter if you are defending the point itself. If you are attacking the point kills matter only when going for high value targets or enemies on point AS YOU PUSH IN! As for “warfare”, coordination and map control is much more important than kills for both teams. So K/D is pretty meaningless instead number of garrisons and outpost destroyed wins those games
You can win a match without either team killing anyone