MP Gameplay

[WhiteKnight77]

You can also win by eliminating all opposing teams.

How does this play into a game with an objective like controlling an area for a set amount of time? If all you have to do is elimiate the other team, you have nothing more than a Team Last Man Standing game. This is what made HH so great in GR. Just eliminating the entire team did not get you a win, controlling the area the longest got you the win even if your entire team was killed.

Because if your the only one left you can't camp it out or be camped. The control of the zone is significant in that aspect. In LMS if it is say 2 vs 1 or 3 vs 1, the 3 can go hide and camp and therefore not lose the match. If you did that in warzone, that 1 remaining on the other team can tag the smoke and is therefore in control. Then you go hunting. In HH you have to stay in the smoke to gain points, but if you are the last one left vs a few, your a goner...most likely naded to death.

This is where your game type falls apart. The last man on the team runs through the smoke and gets killed 2 seconds later, thus losing the round to the other team and not controlling the smoke for 3 consecutive minutes. HH allowed you to accrue time over the course of the round. Even if you were the last one alive and were in the smoke when killed, as long as your team controlled the smoke for the longer period of time, you win, even if your entire team is dead. Big difference between that and last man standing type games which Warzone appears to be, especially if the other team can win by eliminating the opposing team. Remove that caveat and then you may have something.

[PwntUpRage]

I'd love to see all these suggestions get into the game, but if I had to pick a top three go with PEACE's ideas all the way.

[Peace]

This is what made HH so great in GR. Just eliminating the entire team did not get you a win, controlling the area the longest got you the win even if your entire team was killed.

Wrong WK, If the entire team was eliminated in GR HH no or limited respawns, you lost the round (even if you had more time in smoke)

The winning conditions were (at least in the official game):

1) by elimination of the opposing team

or

2) by having the most time in smoke when game ended and at least one team member alive

Didn't cause any problem at all (that you could win by elimination). It required that you stayed alive as no 1 priority and made kills as it should be.

Imo HH no respawns has the advantages over LMS no respawns because of to the extra objective of smoke time that

1) prevents extremely defensive, hiding, strategy as soon as you are up by one kill

and

2) with one teammember on each team remaining on a large map, they'll find the smoke being extra important to keep an eye on. The game becomes more intense...

[Cell]

You can also win by eliminating all opposing teams.

How does this play into a game with an objective like controlling an area for a set amount of time? If all you have to do is elimiate the other team, you have nothing more than a Team Last Man Standing game. This is what made HH so great in GR. Just eliminating the entire team did not get you a win, controlling the area the longest got you the win even if your entire team was killed.

Because if your the only one left you can't camp it out or be camped. The control of the zone is significant in that aspect. In LMS if it is say 2 vs 1 or 3 vs 1, the 3 can go hide and camp and therefore not lose the match. If you did that in warzone, that 1 remaining on the other team can tag the smoke and is therefore in control. Then you go hunting. In HH you have to stay in the smoke to gain points, but if you are the last one left vs a few, your a goner...most likely naded to death.

This is where your game type falls apart. The last man on the team runs through the smoke and gets killed 2 seconds later, thus losing the round to the other team and not controlling the smoke for 3 consecutive minutes. HH allowed you to accrue time over the course of the round. Even if you were the last one alive and were in the smoke when killed, as long as your team controlled the smoke for the longer period of time, you win, even if your entire team is dead. Big difference between that and last man standing type games which Warzone appears to be, especially if the other team can win by eliminating the opposing team. Remove that caveat and then you may have something.

One question...how do you win if you are dead? It would then be a penalty for killing off the other team. Makes no sense.

WK, I didn't make this one up. Warzone is not LMS It was a suggestion to a gametype that was already made for GR1. We matched it for 3 years in the DAMN R6 Battle League, so I know the gametype works, and quite well. And the reason I bring it up is because it is very fun, very intense, and very tactical. I figured it might be something GRAW PC palyers might enjoy. Adds a little twist to HH. The reason why the smoke is effective, is because it brings the two teams to a common objective, instead of just running willy nilly all over obscure corners of the map.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Cell*AFZ*

[ROCO*AFZ*]

This is what made HH so great in GR. Just eliminating the entire team did not get you a win, controlling the area the longest got you the win even if your entire team was killed.

Wrong WK, If the entire team was eliminated in GR HH, you lost the round (even if you had more time in smoke)

The winning conditions were:

1) by elimination of the opposing team

2) by having the most time in smoke when game ended and at least one team member alive

Imo HH no respawns has the advantages over LMS no respawns because of to the extra objective of smoke time that

1) prevents extremely defensive, hiding, strategy as soon as you are up by one kill

and

2) with one teammember on each team remaining on a large map, they'll find the smoke being extra important to keep an eye on. The game becomes more intense...

In graw there are more modes to HH... not all are last man. (tug of war for example)

There are goods and bads to the smoke. TDM in GR ruled in the US Because with dead men talking everyone interacted to find the enemy, scanning there different views and such. Also your teams kills actually counted. Smoke off sets this. Say your team killed 8 of 10 guys before you could get to the smoke but the enemy was in it for 2 seconds, had points and time was running out, they win.

I always felt better with wins in TDM (GR1) as it took skill to pull your team into the lead when behind. You had to hunt the enemy throughout the map instead of walking into 5 guys that are perched around the smoke waiting for you to touch it or waiting for your approach to hear you. If you are behind in HH your as good as dead if your the last guy on your team as your forced to try to take the smoke. I can't count how many times in matches i pulled our team out (and other on the team have) killing 3 peeps who thought they could hide for the win with me ambushing them from behind. In HH i would not have a chance as one could get a few points on the smoke, sit near it, and 2 others perched around it waiting.

Anyway that's just my preference.

There is one mode i do miss in GR1 though that GRAW doesn't have. SAR. Search and rescue.

[Peace]

If you are behind in HH your as good as dead if your the last guy on your team as your forced to try to take the smoke. I can't count how many times in matches i pulled our team out (and other on the team have) killing 3 peeps who thought they could hide for the win with me ambushing them from behind. In HH i would not have a chance as one could get a few points on the smoke, sit near it, and 2 others perched around it waiting.

Wrong, in HH you are never forced to try to take the smoke to prevent loss. If you were the last man alive on your team and down in smoke time, the best option was normally (but not always) to go for an elimination win, not to go for the smoke. You have to have matched HH no respawns to really know the gamemode and how it played out.

It happened just as much as in LMS that single player defeated the 3 remaining enemies and won (especially they were stupid enough to all guard the smoke without checking their backs and each other carefully...)

[Cell]

Wrong, in HH you are never forced to go for the "smoke win". If you were the last man alive on your team and down in smoke time, the best option was normally to go for an elimination win, not to go for the smoke. You have to have matched HH no respawns to really know the gamemode and how it played out.

It happened just as much as in LMS that single player defeated the 3 remaining enemy and won (especially if you knew they were stupid enough to all guard the smoke...)

Exactly.

This is how we had it set up The difference here is the 3 minute timer, and not having to stay in the smoke. :

Victory Conditions:

In Last Man Standing mode (LMS), a win is when one team eliminates the entire opposing team, or is the team with the most people left alive when the game timer expires.

In LMS, a tie is when both teams have the same number of players left alive at the end of the game. This includes when both teams have been eliminated, leaving no one alive. (I don't think I have ever seen this in GRAW bullet to bullet a damn shame too)

In LMS, a loss is when a team is eliminated entirely killed or has fewer players alive than the other team.

In Warzone mode (WZ), a win is when one team eliminates all opposing forces, or controls the WZ for 3 uninterrupted minutes.

In WZ, a tie is when neither of the above-mentioned objectives is met, regardless of the number of players alive on either team. The game will declare a draw by announcing that the WZ has not been taken. If this happens, it is a tie.

In WZ, a loss is when one team is completely eliminated, or when the other team has controlled the WZ for 3 uninterrupted minutes.

I am just making a case for this gametype because I enjoyed it so much. HH is real fun in my opinion, with a few tweaks like this it could be pretty sick, but if you guys don't seee it, I'll settle for HH or TDM. I had a lot of fun playing 0 respawn HH on our server last night. Would love to see more 0 respawn games popping up out there.

We really could use the ability to play all maps with all gametypes. A real short coming of GRAW.

[Peace]

We really could use the ability to play all maps with all gametypes. A real short coming of GRAW.

Agreed, and one of the many reasons why laddering (or t vs t MP in general) never took off with GRAW.

Unfortunately there is no indication that GRAW 2 will be different, thus my plea to make the official GRAW MP maps as downloadable content compatible with GRAW 2 even more important.

I hope a GRIN mapmaker will do this (can't take too much time and effort by somebody that made the game, can it?) and that they persuade Ubisoft to surprize us and give the PC fans this treat. Now that the release is postponed and all...

Do you wanna see a live and kicking MP PC community?

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Wrong, in HH you are never forced to go for the "smoke win". If you were the last man alive on your team and down in smoke time, the best option was normally to go for an elimination win, not to go for the smoke. You have to have matched HH no respawns to really know the gamemode and how it played out.

It happened just as much as in LMS that single player defeated the 3 remaining enemy and won (especially if you knew they were stupid enough to all guard the smoke...)

Exactly.

This is how we had it set up The difference here is the 3 minute timer, and not having to stay in the smoke. :

Victory Conditions:

In Last Man Standing mode (LMS), a win is when one team eliminates the entire opposing team, or is the team with the most people left alive when the game timer expires.

In LMS, a tie is when both teams have the same number of players left alive at the end of the game. This includes when both teams have been eliminated, leaving no one alive. (I don't think I have ever seen this in GRAW bullet to bullet a damn shame too)

In LMS, a loss is when a team is eliminated entirely killed or has fewer players alive than the other team.

In Warzone mode (WZ), a win is when one team eliminates all opposing forces, or controls the WZ for 3 uninterrupted minutes.

In WZ, a tie is when neither of the above-mentioned objectives is met, regardless of the number of players alive on either team. The game will declare a draw by announcing that the WZ has not been taken. If this happens, it is a tie.

In WZ, a loss is when one team is completely eliminated, or when the other team has controlled the WZ for 3 uninterrupted minutes.

I am just making a case for this gametype because I enjoyed it so much. HH is real fun in my opinion, with a few tweaks like this it could be pretty sick, but if you guys don't seee it, I'll settle for HH or TDM. I had a lot of fun playing 0 respawn HH on our server last night. Would love to see more 0 respawn games popping up out there.

We really could use the ability to play all maps with all gametypes. A real short coming of GRAW.

Um... it's not called warzone in HH GRAW but i do believe that type is there. HH has like 4 differernt modes and one is an amount of time you must be in the smoke for a win... persay 1 minute, 2 and such.

Peace---

It's HH seems restrictive to me. You spend lots of time focusing on the smoke as peeps go in and out, only to get shot in the back by one that is ignoring it and playing it like lms.

[InsolenceAndHeresy]

Squad-level CrossCom system

Edited March 20, 2007 by InsolenceAndHeresy

[Hockeystick]

1. Squad-level CrossCom system

2. Squad-level VOIP

You will probably not see any VOIP in GRAW2 since Teamspeak work so much better.

Inside voip is generally worse than outside voip. TS, Ventrillo, etc. are specifically developed to be efficient at minimal loss of quality. I agree with Peace, I'd rather see gameplay improved than getting caught up in licensing and application issues from building-in voice comms. The PC world has been using 3rd party VOIP since the release of Roger Wilco. They are simple and effective and don't need to be reinvented by already overburdened programmers.

Ditto.

[WhiteKnight77]

This is what made HH so great in GR. Just eliminating the entire team did not get you a win, controlling the area the longest got you the win even if your entire team was killed.

Wrong WK, If the entire team was eliminated in GR HH no or limited respawns, you lost the round (even if you had more time in smoke)

The winning conditions were (at least in the official game):

1) by elimination of the opposing team

or

2) by having the most time in smoke when game ended and at least one team member alive

Didn't cause any problem at all (that you could win by elimination). It required that you stayed alive as no 1 priority and made kills as it should be.

Imo HH no respawns has the advantages over LMS no respawns because of to the extra objective of smoke time that

1) prevents extremely defensive, hiding, strategy as soon as you are up by one kill

and

2) with one teammember on each team remaining on a large map, they'll find the smoke being extra important to keep an eye on. The game becomes more intense...

I am not wrong about HH (at least for GR, I have no idea about GRAW's HH as I have not played it). You do not neccessarily win by eliminating the opposite team as noted by the GR manual. You won by more time in the smoke. Back when I ran my server every weekend, there were 3 of us who pretty much dominated HH when we did play. Headhunter, Daywanderer and myself had HH down pat and rarely lost as we played offensively and defensively. We covered a third of an area each and though we often were killed, we almost always won, much to the chagrin of those playing against us.

Screenie of the manual:

There was no time limit for HH unless you actually set the timer yourself. I often set it for 5 minutes though there were times it was set for no time limit.

As I said, this is what seperated it from LMS, the fact that you had to actually control the objective instead of just killing everyone, made the gametype so much different.

I think Warzone sounds like a good game, but with the option of eliminating the other team, what keeps it from reverting to just a last man standing/team death match game? Remove the way to win by eliminating the opposing team and I agree, this new game would be something to play. I have nothing against new game types and do want to see some new ones, but just something that could not digress to a LMS game.

[Cell]

its the objective of capturing the smoke & the 3 minute timer that keeps it from being just an LMS game. its almost a perfect balance of both gametypes...lms and hh. Roco says he thinks there is something similar to it in GRAW called tug of war. going to check it out tonight maybe.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Cell*AFZ*

[Peace]

I am not wrong about HH (at least for GR, I have no idea about GRAW's HH as I have not played it). You do not necessarily win by eliminating the opposite team as noted by the GR manual. You won by more time in the smoke.

Hmmm I'm sure you played it as you outline, but I’m puzzled and suspect that is different from when you play the patched 1.4 GR version with DS and IT installed and with no respawns. What the 1.0 manual reads is definitely misleading and not accurate for no respawn HH games on 1.4 version of GR.

When laddering HH 2003-2004 on European Clanbase http://www.clanbase.com and Total Combat Zone http://www.thecombatzone.net/, no respawn games, time limit 10 or 15 min, the victory was always declared to the last man standing team if the oppositon was completely eliminated (regardless of smoke status). Trust me on this one. If elimination did not occur, the victory naturally went to the team with the most smoke time, if no smoke time by any team or equal smoke time- a draw.

Typical server settings were (GR 1.4 + DS and IT):

1. All RIZ matches are played with the following server settings:

o Random Insertion Zones : ON

o Allow Observers : OFF

o Arcade Mode : OFF

o AI Backup : OFF

o Random Teams : OFF

o Identify Friend or Foe : Reticule

o Threat Indicator : OFF

o Timelimit : 15 minutes

o Game Mode : Team

o Game Type : Hamburger Hill

o Difficulty : Whatever you like!

o Next Map : Same

o Map Repetitions : 3

o Max Players : 36

o Respawn : OFF

o Available Kits : No sensors

o Autostart Timer : No limit

It does not simply make any sense otherwise when playing with no or limited respawns. Eg If one team had collected smoke time enough to make it impossible for the other team to catch up considering the time limit, the game did not automatically end. It always went on the full time length or until a team was eliminated. It would simply make no sense to keep playing if it was impossible to prevent a loss somehow.

UPDATE

WK, I have just verified this on a 1.4 GR server with DS and IT activated with Cell*AFZ*. I let Cell stand in the smoke for 4 min of a 5 min HH game, no respawns, then I shot him. I was declared winner of the game.

Thus, at least for 1.4 version of GR with DS and IT activated, one of the two winning condition for HH no respawn games was elimination exactly as I have stated in previous posts. No matter what the 1.0 manual says .

[WhiteKnight77]

Remember that the PDF was not released until DS or IT. I admit it has been a while since I played HH, but I still remember playing HH after 1.4 (they moved the smoke/base on the Embassy map from the street to the embassy courtyard, something I didn't like really).

[rookie]

Not sure if it has been mentioned before, but the closed MP-Beta of GRAW 2 will start at the beginning of april, at this time further information about the registration for the beta will be revealed.

[Sleepdoc-iBeta]

Im amazed no one has talked about these things yet (although someone started to touch on it when they mentioned squad level VOiP)

I would like server side control (Admins choice) OF ALL advanced warfighter equipment.

#1. Server allows or disallows satellite use by leader, squad, or everyone. in every type of game.

#2. Server allows or disallows the ability of squad leaders to have the same "order" tools ("Move here squad player #1", "cover this direction squad player #2") as seen in t he singel player game. These abilities of a squad leader should beavailable (admins choice for his server) in every game. TDM, siege etc)

#3. I want iconic visual representation of the orders in the 3D world in MP games, not just simgle player games. And I want better, 3D iconic representations of my orders (ala vegas or full spectrum warrior) which adhere to a very precise spot on the ground (if its a move order for example). After all, a team of well trained war fighters knows how to use hand signals to point their squad mates toward a corner or the back side of a concrete wall. those little coins that float in the air can be improved upon. and i want them (admins choice ofcourse) in every game type within MP (except in non-team DM of course, that makes no sense)

#4. THIS IS A BIG ONE

an true improvement on how orders are given to squadmates. for example, any one who has ever played full spectrum warrior (which was a terrible boring game to me, but showed the way with its innovative order giving system) knows that a squad leader can easily give a combination order with no addition sweat of his brow. in other words, i dont just want to be able to say with my mouse click / mouse wheel order thing, "Go to that Corner". that is way to small a packet of info for that use of valuable time. I want to be able to say "Go to that corner but keep your eyes focused west while moving there.... and high too due to roof tops"

or just "west gaze low while moving there." Anyone who is unfamiliar with the elegant simple solution for this need only play spectrum warrior to see. This level of detail can be imparted to a squad mate (or an AI frindly as well) win the same time and with no less mouse/finger coordination that iscurrently used to say "Move there". And for teh record, i like their current flow of middle mouse button/scroll wheel order giving. i just want to be able to give more complex orders once into that system.

When i squad lead over temapseak for mission coop with my buddies, these are the types of commands imy squad parctices with to ensure verbal accuracy wiht the minimum amount of talk. We use a very precise order system that we have developed over many hours of play. i want to see some sort of similar, well conceived, fully rfleshed out options just like real people do in multiplyer. Here are some examples of the words my buddies and i use in game while we practice our boundinf overwatch techniques through threatening urban terrain.

Steve, go there, eyes left

Bob, cover this alley

Bill, go to that corner, but keep eyes north - high and low

jim, walk backwards into that opening - eyes always westerly

of course, the lack of specificity in statements such as ""Go there" and "Cover that alley" is filled in by the iconic representation seen by the player in the 3D world showing him where to go or where to cover. the cover direction shown as a pie slice on his compass. Telling him eyes at ground level vs eyes hi vs eyes hi and low is as simple as a blue pie for low, red for high and flashing alternating pie (red and blue) for a reminder of both. After all, the hand signal would have indicated what i wanted in the real world. this is easily done. but it has to be used by real people in real play together to relaize teh need for it. emulating real people and giving more detailed order intruction capability would take this game to the next level.

finally. a comment on in game VOip. no matter how much better people think teamspeak etc is that in game codecs, they miss the point. In game functionality gives squad commanders immediate access to players whose bodies and ears just jumped into their squad. people can jump in an out of squads and total immersion leader control is instantly applied for those who bring the headphones and mics to the pick-up games. The effect would be immediate and incredibly valuable. friendships form and tight squads are created in unexpected moments that last for months and years. compatible squad mates meet randomly this way and seek eachother out for years to come. The argument about "teamspeak is better outside the game" simply doesn't hold water and never has. Quality may be an issue for some ingame VOip systems, but the value of having it is immense over not having it.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Sleepdoc

[Cell]

finally. a comment on in game VOip. no matter how much better people think teamspeak etc is that in game codecs, they miss the point. In game functionality gives squad commanders immediate access to players whose bodies and ears just jumped into their squad. people can jump in an out of squads and total immersion leader control is instantly applied for those who bring the headphones and mics to the pick-up games. The effect would be immediate and incredibly valuable. friendships form and tight squads are created in unexpected moments that last for months and years. compatible squad mates meet randomly this way and seek eachother out for years to come. The argument about "teamspeak is better outside the game" simply doesn't hold water and never has. Quality may be an issue for some ingame VOip systems, but the value of having it is immense over not having it.

Great Point you raise.

This is huge. As good as Teamspeak is, it has its faults. A major one being the time it takes for your voice to be heard by your teammates. Sometimes a second or 2 is too late. Also I truely agree with your point about "The effect would be immediate and incredibly valuable. friendships form and tight squads are created in unexpected moments that last for months and years. compatible squad mates meet randomly this way and seek eachother out for years to come" This is so true. When I used to play on the Mac side we used to use a service called Gameranger, similar but not entirely the same to Xfire. Basically if you wanted to play [GR] multiplayer on the Mac you had to use it. When someone hosted a game of GR or RvS through Gameranger you were all automatically linked up to comms with everyone in the server. You also had "team" chat and "all" chat. It made our community very tight. You where able to talk to everyone playing at any given time. It also made the games very intense because you worked as a team. I got to know lots of great people on Gameranger over the years, and when it came time to match it was great because you usually has talked a few hundred times with the guys on the other end. Couple that with a nice easy kick/ban feature in the game, to prevent the idiots from spamming the comms, and you have a hell of a product.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Cell*AFZ*

[Sleepdoc-iBeta]

finally. a comment on in game VOip. no matter how much better people think teamspeak etc is that in game codecs, they miss the point. In game functionality gives squad commanders immediate access to players whose bodies and ears just jumped into their squad. people can jump in an out of squads and total immersion leader control is instantly applied for those who bring the headphones and mics to the pick-up games. The effect would be immediate and incredibly valuable. friendships form and tight squads are created in unexpected moments that last for months and years. compatible squad mates meet randomly this way and seek eachother out for years to come. The argument about "teamspeak is better outside the game" simply doesn't hold water and never has. Quality may be an issue for some ingame VOip systems, but the value of having it is immense over not having it.

Great Point you raise.

This is huge. ......... Couple that with a nice easy kick/ban feature in the game, to prevent the idiots from spamming the comms, and you have a hell of a product.

Bingo Cell. I love teamspeak and use it all the time. but only becuase in game, squad based functionality isnt there for me. If it was, i would eat it up. It works great in BF2. The only problem is, your still playing BF2. LOL

[Cangaroo.TNT]

It works great in BF2. The only problem is, your still playing BF2. LOL

That is ###### hillarious

[Judge_Recluse]

Multiple Spawn Points in MP

I just copied this from another post I replied in, but figured it seemed enough people are interested to warrant its own post. I know there is probably no way it will be implemented before the release date, but if GRIN takes notice, maybe a patch would not be out of the question..... If you are a gamer who play MP, and would like to see this put in at a later date, please say something..... Anyway.. on to the subject.

Not sure if you played [Ghost Recon], but ... when you played Team Death Match, there were 4 possible places to spawn when the game started. For example, a North, South, East, West spawn on the map. And your team could spawn at any one of those locations.

So in example, in round one your team spawns in the north spawn, and the team your playing against spawns South, and in round 2 your team spawns east, and the other team spawns north. Its all random so both teams have no clue where the other team is as soon as the round starts.

As it is right now, both teams know exactly where the other team is spawning, and after a few rounds, you know exactly how far the enemy can run to certain choke point, and it becomes a game of timing instead of skill. Like the demo right now, I can pretty much figure how far to sprint across the map, and about when I should be seeing the bad guy so I can slow down. Now if the spawn points were random, I cant just go sprinting across the map trying to get to a certain choke point, because I have no clue where the enemy spawned, I now have to immediately start looking.

It takes the predictable measures out of the game, and takes the replay value up about 50 notches as far as MP goes.

[Merged into one of the existing threads about this]

Edited June 23, 2007 by Pave Low

[sb85]

what he said! most of the times i join a game, i spawn right into a camping killing spree, which is kinda of retarded...team deathmatch becomes team spawn killing

[Papa6]

actually in [GR] you did know where a team spawned. if it was gold vs red, you know where the spawns were and so on. so teams knew where red,blue,green and gold spawns were.

[Judge_Recluse]

How did you know? I mean... you kinda had a clue, but not like it is now, where you are spawning in the same exact spot every time.

If you spawned Red in [GR], that left Blue, Green and Yellow for the other team... And if you ran out of your spawn and the other team happen to spawn close to you, grab your ankles.

[Papa6]

well JR I THINK I understand what you're trying to say. But when I played [GR], I knew exactly where th ebad guys were spawning and kinda a notion of the best avenues of approach. some command maps that were custom even had them put on there. but random spawns are an awesome idea as well. but if your opponent has enuff peeps, then they could simply sit there and wait for you anyway.

so a spawnkill kick/ban for a server would help out with the spawnkill control.

for me? I think I have enough map space to sneek and peek that I have no need to spawnkill, though I've done it myself in the past. but for me what good is a game when I don't give my opponent a worthy chance to give me some competition?