Common play mistakes even vets make

[Zoombie]

Give em hell neddi...make up for the time I'm missing thanks to Mr. Spring being non-ambulatory (bug! Bug!)

[Felix the Cat]

I would disagree with the "never give up, never surrender" bit.

I used to think that I would play until my last con unit was destroyed, and then self-d or give everything to an ally. Having had the opportunity to spectate in many games, and more importantly having had the opportunity to be on the winning side in many games, I now think differently.

I've watched - and played in - many games where someone did as I used to: retreated to some forgotten corner of the map, built a cloaking device, and started from scratch. In the face of four players with full tech-2 economies going. With no allies left.

While I respect the courage and steadfastness of the surviving player, it is simply a waste of time on the part of the winning team, the losing team, and especially the game's host, who has dedicated his computer to running Spring for you for a time. Let's face the cold, hard truth: that player with the one surviving con bot isn't going to win. I feel that it shows disrespect to everyone else to stubbornly continue playing when you have clearly already lost the game. At the point when you have a single con bot left in a late-game situation, it is infinitely better to simply hit CTRL-A CTRL-D and shout something like "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!!". (For extra lulz, if convenient, send that con bot bravely charging into the enemy's defensive line.)

The problem, of course, is simple. There is some point between having a single LLT destroyed on your "front line" and having a single con bot left. Before that point, you are still in the game and should still play fully. After that point, it would be better to bow out. Where is that point? I have a feeling that you'd ask ten different people and you'd get twenty different answers.

[Ishach]

You arent going to win unless you're playing to win.


Sending one conbot to the corner of the map to start a new base isnt going to win you the game, unless you clearly know how you are going to win the game with that new base.


What seperates a good player from a bad player is how well they can look at a situation, form goals from it, and then factor risk vs reward in making strategies to reach that goal.


If you cant think of a strategy that will win the game from the current situation, then its lost and you may as well self D

[Felix the Cat]

If you cant think of a strategy that will win the game from the current situation, then its lost and you may as well self D

There's got to be more to it than that, though. If that was the case, then I should self-D whenever I see that I'm matched up against Lion_heart, because he always beats me. I think that's a ridiculous conclusion.

I don't completely disagree with your reasoning, but I think that there's more to it than what you said.

[ILMTitan]

I doubt that the reason you can't beat Lion_heart is because you can't come up with a winning strategy, but rather that you don't execute it well enough.
Thus I would propose the rule should be "If you cant think of a strategy that will win the game from the current situation if executed perfectly, then its lost and you may as well self D"

[Sheekel]

I hate it when people self-d. Especially if its their whole base. I didnt sit here and toil over my units for hours only to have them go to waste. At least give your oppontents the satisfaction of getting to watch your base get Totally Annihilated.

Besides, its supposed to be "Total Annihilation", right? Not "Total Self-d wasted-time-no-satisfaction-peanut-walrus-thimble."

[Zoombie]

Having a cloked mex in the upper right corner and nothing else is not the same thing as 'fighting'. That's being a prick, actually. 'fighting to the last man' means you have a small army, they have a big army, and you're going to try as hard as possible to do as much damage as possible to the enemy, because thats the fun part of the game!

[Hellspawn]

If you cant think of a strategy that will win the game from the current situation, then its lost and you may as well self D

There's got to be more to it than that, though. If that was the case, then I should self-D whenever I see that I'm matched up against Lion_heart, because he always beats me. I think that's a ridiculous conclusion.

I don't completely disagree with your reasoning, but I think that there's more to it than what you said.

Well that might be the reason why you are losing. If you don't have a plan how to win you are more or less like Ishach said, screwed. Always have a plan, always.

[Neddie]

When I am "screwed" I just experiment more for the future - or I come back with a plan to regain my position.

[det]

comm = ends means I share all my units except my com to my teammates and com bomb you.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

in a team game, and you are crippled, you should still play while you have mobile units left, const or otherwise, as a delaying action to give them time to compensate. if you leave, you should give all your stuff to your team. If your the only one left and your crippled, you should move all your stuff unto a hill and hail "IEM ON TEH HILLZ BRING IT ONS!1" and make a glorious last stand.
there is no condition where you should ever crtl A ctrl D, unless your quiting to make love with a beautiful woman, quitting to go commit suicide after your dismal defeat, or want everyone left in the game to mentally crop your E-penis a few inches

[rattle]

...or you're playing one on ones and everone's into playing quick games.

[MadRat]

Old TA'ers, no matter how much they play Spring, will still right-click in the heat of battle. :)

[manored]

I would disagree with the "never give up, never surrender" bit.

I used to think that I would play until my last con unit was destroyed, and then self-d or give everything to an ally. Having had the opportunity to spectate in many games, and more importantly having had the opportunity to be on the winning side in many games, I now think differently.

I've watched - and played in - many games where someone did as I used to: retreated to some forgotten corner of the map, built a cloaking device, and started from scratch. In the face of four players with full tech-2 economies going. With no allies left.

While I respect the courage and steadfastness of the surviving player, it is simply a waste of time on the part of the winning team, the losing team, and especially the game's host, who has dedicated his computer to running Spring for you for a time. Let's face the cold, hard truth: that player with the one surviving con bot isn't going to win. I feel that it shows disrespect to everyone else to stubbornly continue playing when you have clearly already lost the game. At the point when you have a single con bot left in a late-game situation, it is infinitely better to simply hit CTRL-A CTRL-D and shout something like "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!!". (For extra lulz, if convenient, send that con bot bravely charging into the enemy's defensive line.)

The problem, of course, is simple. There is some point between having a single LLT destroyed on your "front line" and having a single con bot left. Before that point, you are still in the game and should still play fully. After that point, it would be better to bow out. Where is that point? I have a feeling that you'd ask ten different people and you'd get twenty different answers.

I think that while you have some unit capable of construction things you should not surrender and try to make another base. If you are left only with units incapable of buildings things, then you should tell em to charge against the enemy and die in glory...

[Comp1337]

Have you ever played anyone that you kill, an they're like omgz i got mob jammar n mienlayar? if not, it sucks badly. i generally selfD myself and call it gg.

I thought you were a good player, Kixxe!

now who told you that?

[Dragon45]

Ishach, you need to put those seriosu strategies into the damn site >_>

[LordMatt]

Nah, comm bombs in comm continues are a pretty frigging desperate move. They only really do fatal damage if you've been really lazy with air D or you put your comm on your front line and are really lazy with protecting him and concealing his position, both of which will get you slayed by good players in a comm ends game anyways.

Comm bombing another player to clear frontal defenses just means that they now have a comm with infinite defensive dgun capability, since they don't have to be the slightest bit concerned about bomb hunters.

Haha, I've won several games with a strategic com bomb. The point is you had better scout good and make sure it's worth it. Also, you should have many units that can rush in through the hole and cons ready to suck the wreck.

And I don't have too much trouble beating Lion_Heart.

[Felix the Cat]

That's because the order of awesomeness in Spring goes something like this:
SJ -> God -> heze -> "people"* -> LordMatt -> "more people"* -> LionHeart -> x -> a tomato -> me.

*I'm sure of two things... that there are people who fit into these holes, and that those who would post if I hadn't written this disclaimer going "olol i r baet matt in teh 1v1z kk!!!!1!!112~" would not be those people.

[SwiftSpear]

I would disagree with the "never give up, never surrender" bit.

I used to think that I would play until my last con unit was destroyed, and then self-d or give everything to an ally. Having had the opportunity to spectate in many games, and more importantly having had the opportunity to be on the winning side in many games, I now think differently.

I've watched - and played in - many games where someone did as I used to: retreated to some forgotten corner of the map, built a cloaking device, and started from scratch. In the face of four players with full tech-2 economies going. With no allies left.

While I respect the courage and steadfastness of the surviving player, it is simply a waste of time on the part of the winning team, the losing team, and especially the game's host, who has dedicated his computer to running Spring for you for a time. Let's face the cold, hard truth: that player with the one surviving con bot isn't going to win. I feel that it shows disrespect to everyone else to stubbornly continue playing when you have clearly already lost the game. At the point when you have a single con bot left in a late-game situation, it is infinitely better to simply hit CTRL-A CTRL-D and shout something like "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!!". (For extra lulz, if convenient, send that con bot bravely charging into the enemy's defensive line.)

The problem, of course, is simple. There is some point between having a single LLT destroyed on your "front line" and having a single con bot left. Before that point, you are still in the game and should still play fully. After that point, it would be better to bow out. Where is that point? I have a feeling that you'd ask ten different people and you'd get twenty different answers.

I think that while you have some unit capable of construction things you should not surrender and try to make another base. If you are left only with units incapable of buildings things, then you should tell em to charge against the enemy and die in glory...

I don't. I think once you're a good clip more then half the game behind your opponent just self D and stop wasting his and your time, as well as the time of anyone speccing. I'd say it's impolite to do otherwise. But don't self D in allied games if your allies are still around doing fine, even if you as a player have been blasted back into the stone age, you can often help your allies out immensely by just going into hard porc mode and not letting your enemies take the territory into your base. While it will basically never save you in a 1v1 it can give your allies time to push into your enemy.

[LordMatt]

I've beaten SJ in AA and heze and Lion is better than me cause he plays loads more.