M-COM immediate blowup, am I missing something?

#1 Posted by AAABeef (24 posts) -

When playing Rush, I have on numerous occasions encountered a team that seemingly can blow up the M-COM station at will.   These teams activate the destruction of the station, then immediately it is reported as destroyed. 
As everyone knows, even carrying extra explosives with extra OOOMF  means you need a 2 man team to get to the station.  My theory so far: 
 
- They sneak one person into the base, near the M-COM, and then spawn needed team mates with extra C4 with the explosive boost.  They plant all the C4 on the M-COM station and then just activate to rub it in our faces.  They then have one of the C4 planters detonate the entire set of 12 C4s on the M-COM 
  
Is there another method to quickly destroy an M-COM station?  Is it more susceptible to damage once the 'charge has been set'?  Why whenever this happens, is the station activated before it is destroyed?  Are they doing it to be dinks, or is there some sort of an advantage to planting charges on the station before you start working on destroying it?

#2 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Ive seen that a few times. But it was them putting C4 on it. And turning it on. When people run to disarm. BOOM. No more station and no more people. 

#3 Posted by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -

I seen this happening a couple of times but Ive also seen people throw AT mines at the M-Com and then blow them up with C4.

#4 Edited by emkeighcameron (1876 posts) -
@AAABeef said:

" When playing Rush, I have on numerous occasions encountered a team that seemingly can blow up the M-COM station at will.   These teams activate the destruction of the station, then immediately it is reported as destroyed. As everyone knows, even carrying extra explosives with extra OOOMF  means you need a 2 man team to get to the station.  My theory so far:  - They sneak one person into the base, near the M-COM, and then spawn needed team mates with extra C4 with the explosive boost.  They plant all the C4 on the M-COM station and then just activate to rub it in our faces.  They then have one of the C4 planters detonate the entire set of 12 C4s on the M-COM   Is there another method to quickly destroy an M-COM station?  Is it more susceptible to damage once the 'charge has been set'?  Why whenever this happens, is the station activated before it is destroyed?  Are they doing it to be dinks, or is there some sort of an advantage to planting charges on the station before you start working on destroying it? "

It is very annoying, but it is a "legitimate" tactic. Other variations on this jerk tactic include:
 
  • Strapping C4 all over a helicopter, and crashing the chopper into the MCOM.
  • Doing the same, but with an ATV or a UAV.
  • Using AT mines instead of C4.
 
As far as your other questions: 
 
I don't think the MCOM is more damage-susceptible once the charge is active. I think it just TAKES a lot more damage because all of a sudden every attacker will be pummeling it with explosives (to keep disarmers off). 
 
The advantage to planting C4 BEFORE you arm the charge is that nobody will know you are there. No huge "CHARGE SET ON ALPHA" warning pops up, and most of the defenders (especially early on in the match) are not paying attention to the MCOMs. Once you detonate the C4, an audio cue will go out to the defenders saying "ALPHA IS UNDER ATTACK" but most of the defenders will assume it was a distant tank or somebody with a CarlG a mile away hitting it. They won't think it's a team of guys RIGHT NEXT TO IT with C4. 
 
So basically: If you have a good C4 team, there is NO need to ever arm the MCOM. That will only jeopardize the C4 teams chance of success. The only reason to arm it, in this case, is if the C4 team is getting ripped up and they know they won't be able to complete the job. At that point, one of them may as well arm the MCOM in the desperate hope that cover fire will keep disarmers away.
 
I don't know why you keep seeing the "Charge has been planted" warning. The only thing I can imagine is that one of the C4 team is doing it to farm points. You get +50 for placing the charge, and +250 when it blows up (even if it "blows up" because of C4, not the timer). So, it's entirely possible one of those guys is arming the charge just prior to the last C4 detonation.
#5 Posted by yinstarrunner (1181 posts) -

 This is why I don't play rush anymore.  Between sniping the M-COM from all the way across the map with a Carl Gustav to destroying the building its in from your spawn in a tank, to a single squad taking out an M-COM in 5-seconds flat.  I understand why DICE thought it would be a good idea to give the attackers the option to just destroy the M-COM outright, but's it lead to a lot of frustration as people get better at the game and realize new, more effective ways to take it out that the defenders can't really stop.  A few days ago I saw a guy on Isla Innocentes crash a helicopter into the point TWICE.  The kicker? It was loaded down with C4.  After two crashes/explosions, the M-COM was dust.  There was nothing my team could do against that.  It happened too fast.
 
So ya, fuck Rush.

#6 Posted by emkeighcameron (1876 posts) -
@yinstarrunner said:
"  This is why I don't play rush anymore.  Between sniping the M-COM from all the way across the map with a Carl Gustav to destroying the building its in from your spawn in a tank, to a single squad taking out an M-COM in 5-seconds flat.  I understand why DICE thought it would be a good idea to give the attackers the option to just destroy the M-COM outright, but's it lead to a lot of frustration as people get better at the game and realize new, more effective ways to take it out that the defenders can't really stop.  A few days ago I saw a guy on Isla Innocentes crash a helicopter into the point TWICE.  The kicker? It was loaded down with C4.  After two crashes/explosions, the M-COM was dust.  There was nothing my team could do against that.  It happened too fast.  So ya, fuck Rush. "
I still play Rush the most, but every now and then it can get really annoying. If they would let engineers REPAIR the MCOM stations with their repair guns, that would fix a lot of these problems.
#7 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@emkeighcameron said:
" @yinstarrunner said:
"  This is why I don't play rush anymore.  Between sniping the M-COM from all the way across the map with a Carl Gustav to destroying the building its in from your spawn in a tank, to a single squad taking out an M-COM in 5-seconds flat.  I understand why DICE thought it would be a good idea to give the attackers the option to just destroy the M-COM outright, but's it lead to a lot of frustration as people get better at the game and realize new, more effective ways to take it out that the defenders can't really stop.  A few days ago I saw a guy on Isla Innocentes crash a helicopter into the point TWICE.  The kicker? It was loaded down with C4.  After two crashes/explosions, the M-COM was dust.  There was nothing my team could do against that.  It happened too fast.  So ya, fuck Rush. "
I still play Rush the most, but every now and then it can get really annoying. If they would let engineers REPAIR the MCOM stations with their repair guns, that would fix a lot of these problems. "
That would cause games to go much longer. They would have to give the attackers more tickets as well. 
#8 Posted by emkeighcameron (1876 posts) -
@The_Laughing_Man said:
" @emkeighcameron said:
" @yinstarrunner said:
"  This is why I don't play rush anymore.  Between sniping the M-COM from all the way across the map with a Carl Gustav to destroying the building its in from your spawn in a tank, to a single squad taking out an M-COM in 5-seconds flat.  I understand why DICE thought it would be a good idea to give the attackers the option to just destroy the M-COM outright, but's it lead to a lot of frustration as people get better at the game and realize new, more effective ways to take it out that the defenders can't really stop.  A few days ago I saw a guy on Isla Innocentes crash a helicopter into the point TWICE.  The kicker? It was loaded down with C4.  After two crashes/explosions, the M-COM was dust.  There was nothing my team could do against that.  It happened too fast.  So ya, fuck Rush. "
I still play Rush the most, but every now and then it can get really annoying. If they would let engineers REPAIR the MCOM stations with their repair guns, that would fix a lot of these problems. "
That would cause games to go much longer. They would have to give the attackers more tickets as well.  "
Yeah, but something HAS to be done about the bullshit unstoppable C4 vehicle attacks. Make the engineers repair like 10% of the normal speed or something, I don't know, but there has to be some way to counter, or at least mitigate, the suicide runs.
#9 Posted by yinstarrunner (1181 posts) -
@The_Laughing_Man said:
" @emkeighcameron said:
" @yinstarrunner said:
"  This is why I don't play rush anymore.  Between sniping the M-COM from all the way across the map with a Carl Gustav to destroying the building its in from your spawn in a tank, to a single squad taking out an M-COM in 5-seconds flat.  I understand why DICE thought it would be a good idea to give the attackers the option to just destroy the M-COM outright, but's it lead to a lot of frustration as people get better at the game and realize new, more effective ways to take it out that the defenders can't really stop.  A few days ago I saw a guy on Isla Innocentes crash a helicopter into the point TWICE.  The kicker? It was loaded down with C4.  After two crashes/explosions, the M-COM was dust.  There was nothing my team could do against that.  It happened too fast.  So ya, fuck Rush. "
I still play Rush the most, but every now and then it can get really annoying. If they would let engineers REPAIR the MCOM stations with their repair guns, that would fix a lot of these problems. "
That would cause games to go much longer. They would have to give the attackers more tickets as well.  "
Yes because god forbid a team fight to the point to arm it instead of shelling it from a distance while the other team can't do shit about it.
#10 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@yinstarrunner said:
" @The_Laughing_Man said:
" @emkeighcameron said:
" @yinstarrunner said:
"  This is why I don't play rush anymore.  Between sniping the M-COM from all the way across the map with a Carl Gustav to destroying the building its in from your spawn in a tank, to a single squad taking out an M-COM in 5-seconds flat.  I understand why DICE thought it would be a good idea to give the attackers the option to just destroy the M-COM outright, but's it lead to a lot of frustration as people get better at the game and realize new, more effective ways to take it out that the defenders can't really stop.  A few days ago I saw a guy on Isla Innocentes crash a helicopter into the point TWICE.  The kicker? It was loaded down with C4.  After two crashes/explosions, the M-COM was dust.  There was nothing my team could do against that.  It happened too fast.  So ya, fuck Rush. "
I still play Rush the most, but every now and then it can get really annoying. If they would let engineers REPAIR the MCOM stations with their repair guns, that would fix a lot of these problems. "
That would cause games to go much longer. They would have to give the attackers more tickets as well.  "
Yes because god forbid a team fight to the point to arm it instead of shelling it from a distance while the other team can't do shit about it. "
I meant that in a good way. I want longer matches. 
#11 Posted by emkeighcameron (1876 posts) -

Or why don't they just nerf C4 damage against MCOMs? Make it take 30 bricks? That would help a lot.

#12 Posted by yinstarrunner (1181 posts) -
@The_Laughing_Man:  My apologies for misunderstanding you, then.
#13 Edited by Darkstar614 (1098 posts) -

More often than not, the m-comms are in destroyable buildings. Destroying the building instantly destroys the m-comm. and it's easy to do across the map with a tank.

#14 Posted by emkeighcameron (1876 posts) -
@Darkstar614 said:
" More often than not, the some of the m-comms are in destroyable buildings. Destroying the building instantly destroys the m-comm. and it's easy to do across the map with a tank. "
I don't think that's the issue the OP is raising, though.
#15 Posted by Mikemcn (6941 posts) -

Have you ever had your own teammate blow up the MCOM, that makes me angry....

Online
#16 Posted by AestheticSynthesis (414 posts) -

Recently the only counter to that was camping the mcom station with a shotgun.

#17 Posted by KimChi4U (368 posts) -

I'm not arguing that using C4 on an mcom station is frustrating for the defense (and a little cheap too). I think it's equally frustrating when the defenders don't bother to defend the stations and instead, camp the attackers' spawn points. Attica Harbor, the second set of mcom stations is famous for this. If 3 or 4 guys are camping where I spawn, of course I'll switch to shotgun and C4 and sneak away. 
  
#18 Posted by AAABeef (24 posts) -

I get the feeling that DICE's answer to this is Onslaught mode.  The imbalance of having and engineer 'snipe' the M-COM from across the map, as well as the fact that two organized guys can keep the Rush moving with C4 forced the invention of Onslaught.  The imbalance only makes defence a chore, when AI is handling defence the 'anything that works' mentality is a lot more fun for all the humans involved.

#19 Posted by lilbigsupermario (840 posts) -

It's planting C4 that actually destroys the MCOM when it suddenly just blows up after arming it or even before arming it.  Sometimes, people also arm it just to get more points not just on the MCOM damage but also to lure defenders to the MCOM then blow it up when there are defenders already disarming it.  At the moment the MCOM blows up with the people around it, attackers immediately rush to the second MCOM and arm it or plant it with C4.  Arming it is more of a distraction. 
 
And I do think destroying the MCOMs with C4 or land mines is a legitimate tactic.  In the first place, it takes longer to plant a C4 on the MCOM than arming it and second, when you get killed while putting the C4, you can't blow up the C4 you planted (not sure though if the C4 still stays once you die, land mines do.)  And lastly, ask yourself, how the hell did those attackers get near the MCOM?  That is a better question coz that already questions your team's defending tactics; it just means no one was there or too few were surrounding the MCOM to defend it.  You are defenders, you defend basically the MCOM so that means, there shouldn't be any attacker near it. 
 
As for the choppers and UAVs or suicide quad bikes or humvees, it's still legitimate.  The downside to actually equipping vehicles with C4 is that, once you hit the C4, the vehicle is immediately toast.  Same thing, if the vehicle got to the MCOM that easily, then that means you're also not defending properly.

#20 Posted by Spoonman671 (4531 posts) -

I'm sure it has already been said, but arming the M-COM is just a back-up plan.  Plant C4 before you set off the alarm so you don't have the whole enemy team coming after you, then when you have all the C4 in place arm the M-COM in case you get shot before you can set off the charges.

#21 Posted by Pumpeho (49 posts) -
@lilbigsupermario said:
" It's planting C4 that actually destroys the MCOM when it suddenly just blows up after arming it or even before arming it.  Sometimes, people also arm it just to get more points not just on the MCOM damage but also to lure defenders to the MCOM then blow it up when there are defenders already disarming it.  At the moment the MCOM blows up with the people around it, attackers immediately rush to the second MCOM and arm it or plant it with C4.  Arming it is more of a distraction.  And I do think destroying the MCOMs with C4 or land mines is a legitimate tactic.  In the first place, it takes longer to plant a C4 on the MCOM than arming it and second, when you get killed while putting the C4, you can't blow up the C4 you planted (not sure though if the C4 still stays once you die, land mines do.)  And lastly, ask yourself, how the hell did those attackers get near the MCOM?  That is a better question coz that already questions your team's defending tactics; it just means no one was there or too few were surrounding the MCOM to defend it.  You are defenders, you defend basically the MCOM so that means, there shouldn't be any attacker near it.  As for the choppers and UAVs or suicide quad bikes or humvees, it's still legitimate.  The downside to actually equipping vehicles with C4 is that, once you hit the C4, the vehicle is immediately toast.  Same thing, if the vehicle got to the MCOM that easily, then that means you're also not defending properly. "
Oh please. Dont act like its hard to do suicide runs or plant C4 on the Mcoms. Its in fact very easy if you go as recon and run another path away from the front. 
Did you know that you can shoot on dead peoples C4 and they explode? Just because you cant trigger em doesnt mean they are useless. 
 
Port Valdez and engineers standing on Noob Hill is so god damned annoying. Arming the Mcom has been the way of this kind of game mode since they were first introduced, I might be wrong on this point. Destroying em from range is an abomination and is basically nothing but attackers failing to use an actual tactic or teamplay. Its the drooling retard "tactic".
 
This is not people getting better, its people becoming cheaper. 
 
Destroying collapsable buildings with Mcoms inside is, however, legitimate aswell as having a C4 to blow up disarming people.
#22 Posted by Donos (1193 posts) -
@Pumpeho said:
" @lilbigsupermario said:
" It's planting C4 that actually destroys the MCOM when it suddenly just blows up after arming it or even before arming it.  Sometimes, people also arm it just to get more points not just on the MCOM damage but also to lure defenders to the MCOM then blow it up when there are defenders already disarming it.  At the moment the MCOM blows up with the people around it, attackers immediately rush to the second MCOM and arm it or plant it with C4.  Arming it is more of a distraction.  And I do think destroying the MCOMs with C4 or land mines is a legitimate tactic.  In the first place, it takes longer to plant a C4 on the MCOM than arming it and second, when you get killed while putting the C4, you can't blow up the C4 you planted (not sure though if the C4 still stays once you die, land mines do.)  And lastly, ask yourself, how the hell did those attackers get near the MCOM?  That is a better question coz that already questions your team's defending tactics; it just means no one was there or too few were surrounding the MCOM to defend it.  You are defenders, you defend basically the MCOM so that means, there shouldn't be any attacker near it.  As for the choppers and UAVs or suicide quad bikes or humvees, it's still legitimate.  The downside to actually equipping vehicles with C4 is that, once you hit the C4, the vehicle is immediately toast.  Same thing, if the vehicle got to the MCOM that easily, then that means you're also not defending properly. "
Oh please. Dont act like its hard to do suicide runs or plant C4 on the Mcoms. Its in fact very easy if you go as recon and run another path away from the front. Did you know that you can shoot on dead peoples C4 and they explode? Just because you cant trigger em doesnt mean they are useless.  Port Valdez and engineers standing on Noob Hill is so god damned annoying. Arming the Mcom has been the way of this kind of game mode since they were first introduced, I might be wrong on this point. Destroying em from range is an abomination and is basically nothing but attackers failing to use an actual tactic or teamplay. Its the drooling retard "tactic". This is not people getting better, its people becoming cheaper.  Destroying collapsable buildings with Mcoms inside is, however, legitimate aswell as having a C4 to blow up disarming people. "
I used to think something like this, but more and more I'm realizing that all these "cheap" tactics really are simple to stop. Most Defenders are just lazy and/or incompetent. When I defend now, it's exremely rare that anyone manages to sneak in and C4 a crate, or rocket it from range. All it takes to stop these tactics is one defender keeping an eye on the space around both crates. If they're playing Recon, they can do this with motion trackers and snipe Engineers as well (thanks to the rocket contrail pointing straight to them).  
 
If the defending team isn`t capable of just staying near their crates, for forming a front line tight enough not to be stealthed through, that`s their own fault, and they should lose.
#23 Posted by natetodamax (19169 posts) -

How much C4 does it take to blow up the crate?

#24 Edited by Pumpeho (49 posts) -
@Donos said:

" @Pumpeho said:


Oh please. Dont act like its hard to do suicide runs or plant C4 on the Mcoms. Its in fact very easy if you go as recon and run another path away from the front. Did you know that you can shoot on dead peoples C4 and they explode? Just because you cant trigger em doesnt mean they are useless.  Port Valdez and engineers standing on Noob Hill is so god damned annoying. Arming the Mcom has been the way of this kind of game mode since they were first introduced, I might be wrong on this point. Destroying em from range is an abomination and is basically nothing but attackers failing to use an actual tactic or teamplay. Its the drooling retard "tactic". This is not people getting better, its people becoming cheaper.  Destroying collapsable buildings with Mcoms inside is, however, legitimate aswell as having a C4 to blow up disarming people. "
I used to think something like this, but more and more I'm realizing that all these "cheap" tactics really are simple to stop. Most Defenders are just lazy and/or incompetent. When I defend now, it's exremely rare that anyone manages to sneak in and C4 a crate, or rocket it from range. All it takes to stop these tactics is one defender keeping an eye on the space around both crates. If they're playing Recon, they can do this with motion trackers and snipe Engineers as well (thanks to the rocket contrail pointing straight to them).    If the defending team isn`t capable of just staying near their crates, for forming a front line tight enough not to be stealthed through, that`s their own fault, and they should lose. "
Never faced engineer stackers in Port Valdez with 2-3 medics behind em on that hill? They wont lose any tickets and are basically home free to nuke it down anyway. Besides. There sure as hell are snipers that try snipe you when you try to snipe those engineers. 
 
I agree that defenders should have a harder time, but using a one-shot or foolproof kill on the mcoms is not a good way to do this. Its an annoying way and doesnt improve gameplay or enjoyment. 
 
Besides, theres nothing like a full-cover frontline.
#25 Edited by Donos (1193 posts) -
@Pumpeho:  For Port Valdez... mortar strike. I've literally NEVER seen an engineer strack completely destroy an MCOM on Valdez in my several hundred games played. And if the attacking team desides to commit to some snipers, you just snipe harder. They committed half their team to that engineer stack, so you outnumber them and should be able to kill them. If they commit everything they have to these ranged attacks and are somehow beating you, just take one assault into the trees, climb the hill, the knife them all in the back, because they gave up their conventional combat force.
 
And I'll say it again, C4 and Rockets are in no way foolproof. All it takes is one defender actually paying atention to block all C4 attempts, and rocketing engineers are extremely vulnurable to the above (assuming the crate can realistically even be hit with rockets, which often they can't).
#26 Posted by lilbigsupermario (840 posts) -
@Pumpeho said:
" @lilbigsupermario said:
" It's planting C4 that actually destroys the MCOM when it suddenly just blows up after arming it or even before arming it.  Sometimes, people also arm it just to get more points not just on the MCOM damage but also to lure defenders to the MCOM then blow it up when there are defenders already disarming it.  At the moment the MCOM blows up with the people around it, attackers immediately rush to the second MCOM and arm it or plant it with C4.  Arming it is more of a distraction.  And I do think destroying the MCOMs with C4 or land mines is a legitimate tactic.  In the first place, it takes longer to plant a C4 on the MCOM than arming it and second, when you get killed while putting the C4, you can't blow up the C4 you planted (not sure though if the C4 still stays once you die, land mines do.)  And lastly, ask yourself, how the hell did those attackers get near the MCOM?  That is a better question coz that already questions your team's defending tactics; it just means no one was there or too few were surrounding the MCOM to defend it.  You are defenders, you defend basically the MCOM so that means, there shouldn't be any attacker near it.  As for the choppers and UAVs or suicide quad bikes or humvees, it's still legitimate.  The downside to actually equipping vehicles with C4 is that, once you hit the C4, the vehicle is immediately toast.  Same thing, if the vehicle got to the MCOM that easily, then that means you're also not defending properly. "
Oh please. Dont act like its hard to do suicide runs or plant C4 on the Mcoms. Its in fact very easy if you go as recon and run another path away from the front. Did you know that you can shoot on dead peoples C4 and they explode? Just because you cant trigger em doesnt mean they are useless.  Port Valdez and engineers standing on Noob Hill is so god damned annoying. Arming the Mcom has been the way of this kind of game mode since they were first introduced, I might be wrong on this point. Destroying em from range is an abomination and is basically nothing but attackers failing to use an actual tactic or teamplay. Its the drooling retard "tactic". This is not people getting better, its people becoming cheaper.  Destroying collapsable buildings with Mcoms inside is, however, legitimate aswell as having a C4 to blow up disarming people. "
Excuse me?  Oh please?  I'm not trying to be an all-knowing person here, I am just stating my opinion.  As for yours, I understand your point.  But there are only limited paths you can choose to get in, if the defending team doesn't know those paths, then it's the defending team's fault.  It's also true that one recon can go through, but is it really hard to actually pay attention to the MCOM that you are defending and look at it from time to time if someone is arming it?
 
Is it hard to prevent suicide runs?  Not always, you just need a single rocket to kill the humvee with C4 and you can always shoot down the driver of the quad bike or shoot the quad bike to blow it up.  For the UAV, it's the same thing, anyone who notices the UAV is up should be spotting the UAV because it's a threat and if it has C4 attached to it, shooting it with a couple of bullets will blow it up. 
 
I don't know, I play in the PS3 with a couple of friends whom I cooperate effectively with.  Whenever we play, we communicate about the UAV, people sneaking behind, where we died to indicate that someone is there, or warn the squad mates that someone is running to the MCOM or someone is driving a quad bike that may probably be a suicide run.  I have also encountered a match that the attacking team was shooting gustavs on the MCOM as a desperate move to win, but what did we do?  We just shot smoke grenades around the MCOM to limit the visibility of the ones shooting the rockets; that way, some will be forced to run towards the MCOM.
 
I just think it's not being cheap, it's being creative with your plan of attack to win.  Even if you are told that the MCOM can be destroyed by arming it, should it stop you from looking at other ways of achieving your goal?  If the game is meant to have the design that the MCOM can only be destroyed by arming it, then the MCOM shouldn't be destructible through other weapons in the first place.  But that's the point, they made it that way to encourage people to be creative with their tactics, in offense and defense.
 
Again, this is just my opinion about the topic and I respect your opinion.  Just don't "oh please" me and assume I'm just acting that suicide runs are hard.
#27 Posted by Pumpeho (49 posts) -
@Donos: Mortar Strike might clip 1-2 of the engineers, but the medics resses em back up.
 The balance of sending up assault that hill is that it easily becomes cheap in the other direction with baseraping. 
 
Theres always the thing that most games in this game are on public servers. The tactics we are talking about becomes so much easier (yea, Ive C4d Mcoms and one-shot em. I simply dont do it anymore since I get so riled up when the enemy team is doing it).
 
@lilbigsupermario
said:

Excuse me?  Oh please?  I'm not trying to be an all-knowing person here, I am just stating my opinion.  As for yours, I understand your point.  But there are only limited paths you can choose to get in, if the defending team doesn't know those paths, then it's the defending team's fault.  It's also true that one recon can go through, but is it really hard to actually pay attention to the MCOM that you are defending and look at it from time to time if someone is arming it? Is it hard to prevent suicide runs?  Not always, you just need a single rocket to kill the humvee with C4 and you can always shoot down the driver of the quad bike or shoot the quad bike to blow it up.  For the UAV, it's the same thing, anyone who notices the UAV is up should be spotting the UAV because it's a threat and if it has C4 attached to it, shooting it with a couple of bullets will blow it up.  I don't know, I play in the PS3 with a couple of friends whom I cooperate effectively with.  Whenever we play, we communicate about the UAV, people sneaking behind, where we died to indicate that someone is there, or warn the squad mates that someone is running to the MCOM or someone is driving a quad bike that may probably be a suicide run.  I have also encountered a match that the attacking team was shooting gustavs on the MCOM as a desperate move to win, but what did we do?  We just shot smoke grenades around the MCOM to limit the visibility of the ones shooting the rockets; that way, some will be forced to run towards the MCOM. I just think it's not being cheap, it's being creative with your plan of attack to win.  Even if you are told that the MCOM can be destroyed by arming it, should it stop you from looking at other ways of achieving your goal?  If the game is meant to have the design that the MCOM can only be destroyed by arming it, then the MCOM shouldn't be destructible through other weapons in the first place.  But that's the point, they made it that way to encourage people to be creative with their tactics, in offense and defense. Again, this is just my opinion about the topic and I respect your opinion.  Just don't "oh please" me and assume I'm just acting that suicide runs are hard. "
 
Im sorry I was a bit harsh.
 
I guess you can define it as creative, but I firmly believe that it is repressing the advancement of teamplay. Id rather see creative assault plans and teamwork than creative in the sense that they resort to boring tactics which you cannot repair as a defender. 
 Perhaps the fault lies with the rush maps? Theres alot of bottlenecks on each and every map. Altho, that might just escalate the C4ing. 
 
The smoking I hadnt thought of. Gonna try it out vs Gustards.
#28 Edited by Donos (1193 posts) -
@Pumpeho:  I guess I should be clear here, I'm playing by myself on matchmaking on Xbox 360 without a headset. When I say one person can prevent these tactics, I mean it.
 
Also, the argument that you can't expect defending teams to be coordinated enough for this is invalid, if you're going to stipulate that the attacking team is so coordinated that they can quickly rocket down a crate while providing instant revives for all, and sufficient covering fire to hold down the entire defending team.
 
Oh, I wouldn't recommend smoke against rockets. The attackers always have the hud indicator of where the crate is, so they can just aim at that. I do, at least.
#29 Edited by lilbigsupermario (840 posts) -
@Pumpeho said:


 Im sorry I was a bit harsh. I guess you can define it as creative, but I firmly believe that it is repressing the advancement of teamplay. Id rather see creative assault plans and teamwork than creative in the sense that they resort to boring tactics which you cannot repair as a defender.  Perhaps the fault lies with the rush maps? Theres alot of bottlenecks on each and every map. Altho, that might just escalate the C4ing.  The smoking I hadnt thought of. Gonna try it out vs Gustards. "

No problem dude ;) 
 
Yeah, I agree that shooting the MCOM down at long range does take out the excitement of actually sneaking in and arming the MCOM.  And yes, I very much agree that you can't even repair the MCOM after being damaged, maybe they should update it that defenders can actually repair the MCOMs?  lol!  I'm not sure though if it will make attacking much more difficult hehe, but if attackers can actually destroy an MCOM with like 12 C4s, I guess defenders should also have the benefit of repairing their MCOM. Just a random thought haha! 
 
I also agree that it may be a problem with the rush maps.  Sometimes those bottlenecks can really murder the attacking team hehe, but sometimes I also feel like there are too many entry points to the defending base like the Atacama Desert, Nelson Bay and Laguna Presa maps; not sure though, maybe I feel that whenever my team is getting rushed down lol.  But I also miss the Battlefield 1942 big open maps where vehicles really play a big part in the match hehe! 
 
Try out the smoke grenades, but not directly at the MCOM, just a few meters away from the MCOM to block the view of the gustav people hehe!  The downside of doing the smoke grenades thing, you really don't get points from it, but it does help your team in some way. ;)  
  
 

 @Donos said: 

"Oh, I wouldn't recommend smoke against rockets. The attackers always have the hud indicator of where the crate is, so they can just aim at that. I do, at least. "

 
 
 Yeah you can see the hud indicator where the MCOMs are, but the smoke does help prevent direct shots coz some people shoot the rockets slightly off when they can't see the actual MCOM.  I guess another option is to snipe or mortar strike the area where the gustav rockets are coming from hehehe!  It worked for me in some matches, not all the time though, but it did work. :)
#30 Posted by Nadafinga (957 posts) -

I can see both sides of the argument, but I'll be damned if I can win a Rush game these days. the first few months were much more fun when these C4 tactics weren't being used. I used to love Rush, but I stick to Conquest mostly now, it's less frustrating. Maybe if they allowed Engineers to repair MCOMs it might be a bit more balanced. I don't mean fully repair them easily, just put back a little of the health bar, even it out a bit. If attackers can damage it, I think defenders should be able to repair it.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.