Discussion: Early Game Commander Rushes

The way you stopped an early commander in FA was a point defense.

It didn't do massive amounts of damage but it was enough to scare him off (surrounded by walls PD could take a decent chunk of HP of an ACU).

PD needs a little more range or the commander needs a little less (I am also of the opinion that it's fire rate is much too high, has been since start of Alpha). Range is how I would try to solve this problem.

That and also make it to where if your commander dies then you are out of the game, you can't control other units. Might dissuade people from doing it a bit.

The problem is that it makes people who dont actually play the game be kicked out of the match and lost all the fun in my opnion the best tatic is increase the comm economic power as said early players will feel less confortable in risking a rush if they lost a huge economical advantage

I like this idea, simply because it fixes the problem and still counters pelter creeps.

Again if they dont play for ladder or competitive then turn off option
your teammates would be even less comfortable to sacrifice you or themselves if it would be in effect

I am all for being proved wrong but I have yet to see someone effectively defend properly against my comm rushes. That's why I keep doing them. I'm going to play some games with good players who also comm rush and properly evaluate whether I can defend against them.

Actually no, they countered it well and then threw 2 commanders away with terrible play from 9:30 onwards.

It's ridiculous how the people for Comm rushes are resorting to degrading personal attacks and claims of lack of skill.

"I like my tactic. I don't think it's OP. So you must be a bad player."

They also must not bother actually reading the threads on here.

Commander rushing is a very binary and boring way to play Planetary Annihilation. That is my main issue with this. It's lame and ruins the entire army game mode.

Yes, I believe that's entirely our point.

Your argument in this thread appears to be, "Commander rushes are perfectly balanced and optional and not overpowered at all which is why I do it in every game because it always works and is the only way to win." Stop being confusing!

Show me some video of you defending against a commander rush, without having to do a counter-rush using your own commander, and then we'll talk about how it's optional and balanced.

We should also discuss how commander rushes are a very Starcraft-esque micro-intensive playstyle for a game that otherwise has gone through a lot of trouble to reward macro more than micro. What's the macro gameplay answer to the Comm-rush micro problem? What can I do to defeat your micromanaged commander that does not involve my own micromanaged commander in a Comm vs Comm gunfight?

It's also kinda funny how the pro-commander rush people ignore the fact that we're now on page 11 with many more people showing support for the anti-commander rush side than are for it.

The community obviously believes they're OP and/or are bad for gameplay, even if they don't think its OP.

Let's start again, because I'm getting confused.

What are your arguments for it being OP? All I've seen is you stating it is OP without any proof or evidence.

Also please detail which players have been commander rushing you, because I know of very few who actually do it.

Let's start with this, then:

Commander rushes reward micro more than macro.
PA is a game that's supposed to reward macro more than micro.
How do we solve this problem?

First off, I'm just repeating myself as well as what other people have said here. So you must not have actually read my posts because I have given many reasons. So if you're going to participate in the discussion, you should actually read the discussion.

While "OP" may be a slight exaggeration. The power of Commander rushes in Army matches certainly is binary, and boring for gameplay. There's no variety and the match outcome is determined early on – that's bad gameplay. Especially with what PA is supposed to be like.

Let me start my argument by stating that this issues is only an issue during the opening 15 minutes or so. Commanders lose their offensive validity as soon as advanced defenses and units get on the field.

Primarily, the current power of Commander Rushes in large Army matches is very binary gameplay. It's one strategy to win or lose that is determined very early on. It's boring. PA is supposed to be all about variety and multiple ways to win. Commander rushes are anything but that.

Also, Commander Rushes are very micro oriented. This is intended to be a macro game. This strategy is counter to the very ideology behind PA.

It's very difficult to counter during the early portions of the match, especially since if you successfully defend against it, you still lose a large portion of your base and subsequently, the match. And remember, we're talking about Army matches generally with 3 or more Commanders. The issues is compounded the more Commanders their are due to their DPS and Uber Cannons.

There are very few ways to successfully counter Commanders during the early game. Most of which involve having at least an equal number of Commanders.

The other issue, is it takes nothing to obtain. All players have the most powerful attack strategy without needing to work for it. That's bad. A game that is strategy based should reward players for playing well. Not give them the most powerful offensive strategy for simply entering a game. It'd be like playing WOW with the most powerful weapons in the game at level 1.

No real point in trying to explain the very strategy that you use. You know why it's powerful. You know why it's difficult to counter.

Even so, the main issue is the binary nature of the gameplay it creates. This game is supposed to be about variety, multiple strategies, multiple ways to win. When someone Commander rushes, the game will be determined by the success or failure of the attack. Often, the attacker wins the match even if the attack is lost.

It's binary. It's boring. It's very powerful with very few counters. When there's a Commander rush, there's only one strategy. Only one way to maybe counter the attack.

PA is supposed to be about variety. It's supposed to be about options. It's supposed to be about macro gameplay. It's supposed to reward players for using superior strategy to obtain the more powerful units.

Commander rushes are the exact opposite of what PA is supposed to be about.

I hear you brian. But for the first couple minutes of the game, the commander your most viable combat unit. Unless the devs can force spawns in 1v1s to be as far apart as possible, it really cannot change that much.

Yeah that's what I thought, you just post your opinions as fact.

You make all these claims with nothing to back it up than your unwavering belief that you are correct. You haven't shown any evidence of games where you try to counter it, you merely claim it is OP. It's through seeing you counter in the best way possible and have it still be OP that we can see maybe there is an issue. From what I can see you also haven't read any of the counters to comm rushing. I'm not sure if you've even been comm rushed or tried to counter it.

Back to the most important part of the post that you didn't reply to,

Which people comm rush you? I would like to know which players are doing this comm rushing against you.

Let calm flow over this thread like a river.....

Its a discussion between people that all happen to not know anything about this game, but talking like they are playing it 24/7. Also, you can just get on the TS and we can show you in a few minutes what you do so that you can see moving your commander as a rush is fine. Oh and for the record, today i lost 2 commanders to just 1, because i fucked up.

So which points you dont agree with, and why are they invalid in your opinion?
That way we could finally bring up arguments instead of going round and round just slamming the topic, instead of getting deeper into it.

The cost of doing a com-rush (say you got 3 comms in an area and spotted 2 commanders in your vincinity):
* Build a few excess fabbers to replace the comm (2 per comm I`d say)
* Walk over there, shoot **** up, micro it (time microing)

The cost of defending a comm rush (given you scouted it):
* Pull your comms together (messed up your plans)
* Pull all units together (messes up your plans, other areas are now undefended)
* Build pelters (eco)

Now, you might be successfull in repelling the attack, but the cost in static defenses is done, the units are out-of-place or dead, your base and eco will likely have damage.
The attacker meanwhile has lost nothing except its initial investment, and thats pretty much the best case for the defending player.

The only upside is that the attacker could overextend itself and lose some or all comms, but the risk of losing one is rather low as you can always backoff and heal.

This is my understanding of the issue, if this is wrond you can correct me... or explain how you would defend against comm rushes and why this has a good chance of a positive or neutral outcome for you.

It totally depends on what happens and what kind of game your playing.

I don't think "PA is meant to reward macro more than micro" is opinion.

The devs have done a great deal to eliminate the advantages of micro, from improvements to unit pathing to the creation of area-commands to the reveal of upcoming improvements meant to reduce scout micro.

So two things are factual at this point:
1) PA is a game meant to reward macro more than micro
2) Commander rushes reward micro more than macro

Do you disagree? If so, please explain why you feel either of the above statements are incorrect.

So again I ask, how do you think we should solve the problem of Comm rushing rewarding micromanagement?

Or, optionally, explain how a player can use superior macro to defeat a player who is micromanaging a Commander rush. I am Comm rushing you. Explain how you will come out on top without resorting to your own intense micromanagement.

(For example: you are micromanaging a Dox rush against me. I can defeat your micromanaged Dox rush via a slew of high level commands meant to increase my economy, upgrade to T2 and maintain basic defenses. The more time you spend microing your Dox rush and the more time I spend expanding my economy and focusing on the higher level game, the further behind you will fall. Microing a Dox rush is very rarely worthwhile. Replace "Dox" with "Commander" and it's no longer true. Your micromanaged Commander rush is superior to any high level strategy I can employ.)

sure, its about whats most likely to happen.
And to me its a strat that has low risk to do anything bad for you, while hurting the opponent - potentially throwing the match into a foregone conclusion.

It should be way more risky to have your comms far from your base.

But it IS risky - you are placing your snake's head, as it were, far from the nest. When the head falls, the rest follows.

There are ways to make it LESS risky - but that doesn't negate the fact that you are sending THE ONLY UNIT that the enemy really needs to kill RIGHT TO THEM.

(in a 1v1).

In a FFA its the only unit you need to protect.