HAWKEN servers are up and our latest minor update is live!
Forgot Password? SUPPORT REDEEM CODE

Jump to content


An In-Depth Overview of Missile Assault Strategies


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Atlanis

Atlanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted February 20 2013 - 01:37 PM

Missile Assault is a fairly standard king of the hill cap-and-hold game mode. There are two big ways that people fail at this mode, which are very similar to the ways in which people fail at them in other games. In this guide, I'll describe them and why they are bad strategies that cause you to lose out on XP and potentially lose the match for you and your team. I'll also give tips and pointers on how to increase your XP gain from this game mode as well as to support your teammates on your road to victory. In order to do this, I will draw not only on my experience in Hawken and other similar FPS games, but I will also make analogies to other games with similar modes of play in order to demonstrate what circumstances certain strategies work under and why those same strategies are not effective in Hawken.

What not to do:
These are very simple: don't attempt to zerg rush cap points (hereafter: CPs) in an attempt to capture them all at once through sheer numerical advantage at each fight, and don't ever, ever, ever chase people when they run far away from the CPs*.

Why Shouldn't I Chase?
Do you really need to ask? It opens the point up to be captured more easily, it puts you in a poor position in which you can be surrounded and easily killed, it prevents your team from providing solid reinforcement, it doesn't give good XP, it often results in a 1 for 1 trade with the enemy, and thus doesn't even result in a padded KDR. Suffice to say, it is a universally bad idea*.

Why Anarchy Fails
I am aghast when people suggest to me, as they have in the past, that a group of players running about without any form of communication or strategy can be successful. I have never witnessed an anarchic team overcoming a team with any semblance of organization except under two very extreme circumstances.

The first circumstance is that the anarchic team so vastly outskills the communicative one that they the communication doesn't make up for the difference in skill. This would be akin to putting h0b0, AsianJoyKiller and other tournament players in a match against a bunch of first-timers in their brand new CRTs.

The second circumstance is that the communicative team is only 'organized' but not actually organized. For example, they discuss a strategy but mostly ignore it. In this case, they too are an anarchic team and it becomes anyone's game.

There is only one strategy that I can think of that straddles the line between anarchy and organization: zerging. As I will show you, it doesn't work well in Hawken.

Why Zerging Fails
Zerging is a surprisingly common tactic in this game mode in every game. In particular in World of Warcraft, this is the dominant strategy used in all pug matches. You will almost never see anyone do anything else. It actually works to some degree in WoW. Why is this? In WoW, a single skilled player cannot overcome a large number of others through skill because of the mathematical and CC advantage that they have. This is not the case for Hawken. Why?

First off, in Hawken Crowd Control (abbreviated CC) is limited a single item: the EMP. In WoW, it is possible for 2 people to keep another person locked down in ad infinitum. In Hawken, you would need 11 people all firing their EMPs with 100% accuracy to do the same. Thus, in Hawken a skilled player can keep their mobility and avoid quite a bit of incoming damage, greatly extending their lifespan and preventing capture of the point.

Next off, one really good Hawken player can kill 2-3 (and sometimes even 4) other less skilled players without dying. At the least, they can survive long enough against them to allow their team to reach the point before it can even be contested.

Another reason that it works well enough in WoW is that it takes much longer to travel between the points than it does to capture them. In Hawken, you can get from S1 or S3 to S2 in less time than it takes to contest it. You can likewise get from S1 to S3 (or visa versa) in less time than it takes to capture it. In WoW, you can contest it before the other team is even aware that anyone is contesting it. Further, the travel time is at least 15-20s depending on location and class, and is even longer if you are already engaged in combat by at least 8 seconds. As I have already shown, neither of these is the case in Hawken. Anyone can easily get from any given point to any other point regardless of combat status in much less time than it takes to capture it.

It is very important to note that this strategy only works against unorganized groups in WoW. Against opponents with even just three or four (of fifteen, so <=33% of the total group size) organized players, the strategy completely falls apart. The same strategy can be employed in Hawken with only one or two people. What strategy? Back-capping.

To Kill a Zerg: Back-Capping in Brief
Back-capping is the process is following the zerg just far enough behind that they don't notice you and capturing their points as soon as they are engaged at the next one. Back-capping is not as effective in Hawken as in WoW (where it is OMGSUPEREFFECTIVE against zergs), yet the strategy it is designed to counter is also much, much less effective. There are three possible outcomes of a back-capping strategy: (1) the zerg will stop moving forward and attempt to chase the back capper, allowing another player to capture what the zerg had been attempting to capture; (2) the zerg will ignore the back capper, and resultingly will never hold more than one point at a time; (3) the zerg will leave players to defend points against back-cappers, effectively destroying the only strength a zerg has: numerical advantage.

As of this writing, zerging is not a common strategy. However, I have seen it becoming more common as more new players are introduced to the game. In particular, I haven't been able to play as much as I'd like to since they reset the matchmaker and have been paired with much newer players than I had been playing against as a result.

Building a Better Strategy
The third outcome of the back-capping strategy is actually the least desirable option. For you see, this outcome results into a zerg evolving into a more advanced and significantly more effective strategy.

As I noted above, a single player can prevent multiple others from capturing a point for a long period of time. My record on Zeke (my Berzerker) is ~25 seconds against 3 opponents, accomplished through much pillar humping, dodging, and caffeine. This is more than enough time for your team to show up and provide support. This leads us to our first improved strategy.

Strategy Option 1: In Which the Tortoise Beats the Hare
Turtling is a very common strategy in this type of game mode. It is widely to considered to be boring and frustrating. Thankfully, it is not the most effective strategy in Hawken. However, it does stand head and shoulders above zerging and is the easiest to effectively organize in a pug match. So how does it work?

First off, you content yourself with holding only two of the three points. You only need two to win, after all, so why risk taking the third? I'll discuss more about that question later, but for now regard it as rhetorical. Once you've gotten over your urges to go for that lovely uncaptured missile silo, you're about halfway to the turtling strategy.

An effective turtle has three parts: 2 defenders and 1 mobile group that moves between the points being defended, providing support as needed. The defenders would optimally be someone who can both provide long-range support to the other point being defended (eg SS, Reaper or possibly Grenadier on Origin; I need to check if their grenades can reach S1/3 from S2, I have a feeling that they can't) and who can survive for long periods of time (relatively) without backup. If you can't get both, opt for the latter. It is much more important that they can hold their own against multiple opponents long enough for reinforcements to arrive than for them to be able to provide long-ranged support.

The mobile group would be the rest of your team. If you have a large team, you might consider leaving two on each CP instead of 1. The mobile group goes to whichever point needs it more and, most importantly, is completely fluid! The mobile group can split into two groups if they are pressuring both of your CPs in order to hold both points.

In order for this strategy to be most effective, you should try to keep S2 (the middle point). This minimizes the distance that your mobile group needs to travel in order to reach the second point.

The biggest weakness of this strategy is when a team rapidly switches targets. For example, if they are focusing their efforts on S3 such that your entire mobile group is there, but then quickly move ~half of their forces to S2, then they can often destroy or drive off the defender(s) before the mobile group can move to reinforce it. If you lose a CP while running this strategy, most teams crumble into anarchic half-zergs and fail to accomplish anything for the rest of the match.

Further, with this strategy no pressure is applied to the opposing team, allowing them to play purely offensively. One could use this as a baiting tactic if they wanted to get more advanced, but that is beyond most pugs. How could this be improved?

Strategy Option 2: In which Mr. Fantastic Defeats Dr. Doom
The key to this strategy is flexibility. It is an extension of Option#1 in that you still have point defenders and a mobile group. However, in this case your mobile group is usually fluidly split into two parts: one offensive and one defensive. The defensive one helps alleviate pressure on the points you hold, while the offensive one applies pressure at the point(s) the enemy holds.

The major advantage of this strategy over the previous is that, even if your offensive group is only one or two mechs, it applies enough pressure to the enemy to necessitate that they don't overcommit to taking one of your CPs. If they do, it is trivial to merge your offensive and defensive groups into one massive pseudo-zerg and overrun one of their CPs in trade for one of yours.

Flexibility is key in Hawken, as it is in most games. If you are flexible (Mr. Fantastic), you're going to do well. If you aren't (Dr. Doom), then prepare to get your ass kicked by those who are. The advantages of flexibility are so numerous that I won't attempt to describe them here. I hope that I've already shown many of them, and I'll attempt to illuminate the reasoning some more: flexibility allows your team to effectively counter what the opposing team does. For example, morphing into a pseudo-zerg if they attempt to overrun one of your points through brute force (as mentioned above). Be flexible, but be structured. Structure is very, very important, especially when things go wrong.

A lesser advantage of this strategy is that it has a much lower tendency to fall into disarray if you lose one of your points. Because you already have a clear offensive plan, people have something to fall back on when the defensive plan falters. The impact of this cannot be underestimated.

This strategy is the most common one I see run on teams that repeatedly perform well. For many people, it is natural. Some people are naturally tuned to play defensively and, without any instruction at all, will either remain as defenders or perform the role of a mobile defense group. Meanwhile, others are naturally more aggressive and will fall into the role of a mobile offense group. You can't be picky in pug games, and one should try to fill a role that is missing by your team if possible.

For example, I'm naturally defensive and often fall into the def group simply by nature. Most groups need this type of support, so it works well. However, in other groups we may be too defensive, in which case I attempt to go apply pressure to the enemy team.

This may seem almost like an anarchic 'strategy', however there is an important difference. This strategy necessitates communication between team members, something which is absolutely not anarchic. Also, the naturalness of the roles doesn't mean that the strategy is performed entirely naturally (in a near-anarchic way). Rather, it means people fall into it by a desire for organization and communicative play and thus the strategy forms naturally, but it is not natural play without strategy, as anarchy is.

What about Organized play?
Organized play is a whole different and absolutely monstrous beast. There are so many tactics and counter-tactics that an organized group can employ that a pug couldn't even dream of performing with any semblance of success that I'm not even going to bother describing them (although, in fact, I described one in brief previously in my discussion of option #1). Further, organized clans can tailor strategies to the players that they have available and thus may have extremely effective strategies that would never work in a pug environment.

What about XP?
You get ~30XP each time the CP fires while you are standing within the circle with ownership of the point. It is extremely difficult to top this XP rate from kills alone unless you are dealing more than half of the damage on each kill and assist. Even better, getting kills and assists while on a point grants bonus XP. From memory, this is roughly ~13 extra XP per kill and assist. Sometimes it doubles and you get a reward from a kill/assist for both 'Contesting Control' and 'Control Defender', totaling an extra 26XP. This game greatly promotes fighting on the points in its reward structure. Hawken is the only game that I know of that does this, and I think it is awesome. Not only does it incentivize good play, but it also gives defenders rewards on-par with offensive players! Seriously, I can't think of a single other game that does this. I've attached a breakdown of the scores from a recent MA match, and as you can see just being around a CP accounts for almost 1/3 of my total score, with the 'Silo Kill' and 'Silo Assist' categories adding another nice chunk. Long story short: fight near the points to maximize your XP gain!

Note: in the match referred to by the attached screenshot most of the enemy team happened to ignore me, which got me many more kills and much more combat XP than usual.

hawken_ma_xp_breakdown.png

Should I use Voice Comm or Text?
Always use voice comm if you can. If you can't, text makes a decent fallback, but you should be listening to those who are using voice comm. It is much easier to speak while playing than to type while playing. You can't do anything but aim and shoot while typing, but you can do much much more while speaking.

TL;DR: Don't chase, don't zerg, don't lone-gun, don't ignore your team's strategy, don't fight off the points, attempt to keep your points defended, be flexible and--most importantly--communicate with your team!

I hope this guide is helpful. Please respond with comments and suggestions (especially you more experienced players)! Thanks for reading!

    -- Atlanis

* If they're within a reasonable distance, chase away but keep an eye on the point. If you start drifting away far enough that you can't get back to the point in a couple of seconds, you're too far. May not apply in organized clan matches.

Edited by Atlanis, February 20 2013 - 02:40 PM.


#2 ShadowGTR

ShadowGTR

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,034 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted February 20 2013 - 01:51 PM

So that's what it means when it flashes up on screen "contesting control" and "control defender". I had assumptions, but I wasn't 100% sure. Thanks for posting this! Very well done!

Posted Image


#3 AsianJoyKiller

AsianJoyKiller

    Lithium Cellophane Unicorn Salad

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,011 posts
  • LocationWI

Posted February 20 2013 - 01:57 PM

How to win MA (assuming equally skilled teams):

Origin - Rush and capture S2, then capture S1. Hold these. If needed, back cap S3 or S1 to remove defense from S2.

Bazaar - Have low spawn


[HWK]HUGHES, on July 03 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

AJK is right

The Sinful Infil HEAT Cannon Hustler, Cloaking and Smoking, C-Class Swagger, Ballin' n' Brawlin'


#4 Atlanis

Atlanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted February 20 2013 - 02:05 PM

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on February 20 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

How to win MA (assuming equally skilled teams):

Origin - Rush and capture S2, then capture S1. Hold these. If needed, back cap S3 or S1 to remove defense from S2.

Bazaar - Have low spawn


While true, lets pretend that the maps are balanced (as, eventually, they will be [i hope]).

#5 Agile

Agile

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted February 21 2013 - 12:46 AM

Thanks for the extensive guide. Up untill Hawken i havent really played games with a similar gametype as MA, been mostly playing a form of attack and defend or search and destroy, so i wasnt really familiar with the strategies involved.

Anyway, altough i know how MA basicly works, with this guide looking back i now recognise and have seen these strategies. Not sure if you can really call it "strategy" in pubs, there is often not a "commander" that gives direction in this regard and often these patterns just occur by players responding to the opposing players and vice versa.

That aside. Altough zerging is not the best strategie, it is something i often see and without communication this is something that works with minimal coordination. Especially when people come from TDM where they learned to stick together and thus move around the map in a big group cleaning up CP's (but often not holding it due to back-capping). Besides that, i think that in pubs often the overall progress and strategy is not even seen or followed by alot of players that just play TDM around a missile silo.

Edited by Agile, February 21 2013 - 12:54 AM.


#6 Atlanis

Atlanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted February 21 2013 - 02:55 AM

View PostAgile, on February 21 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

Thanks for the extensive guide. Up untill Hawken i havent really played games with a similar gametype as MA, been mostly playing a form of attack and defend or search and destroy, so i wasnt really familiar with the strategies involved.

Anyway, altough i know how MA basicly works, with this guide looking back i now recognise and have seen these strategies. Not sure if you can really call it "strategy" in pubs, there is often not a "commander" that gives direction in this regard and often these patterns just occur by players responding to the opposing players and vice versa.

That aside. Altough zerging is not the best strategie, it is something i often see and without communication this is something that works with minimal coordination. Especially when people come from TDM where they learned to stick together and thus move around the map in a big group cleaning up CP's (but often not holding it due to back-capping). Besides that, i think that in pubs often the overall progress and strategy is not even seen or followed by alot of players that just play TDM around a missile silo.

I'd say that your observations about zerging are fairly accurate. The fact, however, is that if they are truly zerging (and not doing strat #1 or #2) then they have no defenders and it is easy to keep them from capping more than one point at a time. I see this happen with some regularity. Usually, the team that was zerging ends up moving to 'strategy' #2 .

#7 Incapacity

Incapacity

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted February 21 2013 - 07:20 AM

Great guide, but man I don't think I can 'get' MA until we see proper maps where the silos are distributed in any formation except a straight line.
last.fm/user/sincapacity objectively good taste
plusle.nabyn.com art things

#8 Atlanis

Atlanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted February 21 2013 - 10:34 AM

View PostIncapacity, on February 21 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Great guide, but man I don't think I can 'get' MA until we see proper maps where the silos are distributed in any formation except a straight line.

I *think* that these strategies should still work equally well regardless of formation, as there are only two possibilities for it: (1) the distance from silo A to silo B or silo C is less than the distance from B->A/C and C->A/B or (2) distance A->B/C = distance B->A/C = distance C->A/B. In the latter case, it doesn't matter which one you base off of (which is really boring imo, i dont expect to have one like this). In the former case, which is what we have, I expect the strategies could work equally well.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users