Forums / Games / Halo Wars Series

Rushing by 3-4 minutes is a near-guarantee in 3v3.

OP The1astJoker

Partial Rant:

Title says it all. All my games of 3v3 have been being rushed with banished jump-pack brutes, colony Goliath, or a mix of the two. I wouldn’t mind if it was 1 or 2 out of three leaders rushing, but all three opponents always rush the base before 4 minutes and while I can counter using my own strategy, often my teammates loses one base.

This shouldn’t be the dominant strategy in this game to the point that it is the only strategy even at higher skill levels. The common-counter argument is that “rushing is a strategy so deal with it”, but don’t you think that there is a gameplay issue if the dominant strategy in this game is to rush?

Quick explanation: When the game starts, there are mainly three options of how to play any RTS starting at time 0.
1: Rush
2: Turtle
3: Reach high tech tier ASAP
A balanced game would mean there is a 1/3 chance that a player will rush, but that is not what I am noticing.

Obviously you can do a mix of the the three options but the fastest way to achieve the goals of strategies 1-3 should be to follow 1-3 exclusively. (Reply if this doesn’t make sense and I’ll explain)

Another annoying thing is when their rush fails, one player immediately resigns as if he knows he has no chance if he can’t win the first 5 minutes. Players should give the courtesy to stick around until the end if they are going to be the ones to rush.
The reason rushing is so popular is threefold.

1. Scouting is not nearly as common as it should be.
2. It's the easiest way to beat lower skilled players than you.
3. It is the easiest way to beat uncoordinated teams.

There is nothing wrong with either of these three reasons as they aren't gameplay issues, they're player issues.
Good teams will defend off a rush or counter rush.

But yes 3v3 the best tactic is to take 1 opponent out by rushing at the 3 minute mark. It’s been like that since the beginning of the game. Used to be
Double Kinsano jackrabbit turret drop with Atriox jumppack countermeasure brutes.

a lot of bad habits are learned in 3s

2s and 1s are more competitive but same strat

3 minute rush.
A large majority of this game's player base is scatterbrained so rushing can be easily utilized since even experienced players don't always repel them successfully. As the game ages, we see more and more people smarten up so, from my experience, I actually see less 'rushing' than I used to months ago. Turtling against a rush often works well when you build anti-infantry turrets.
The reason rushing is so popular is threefold.

1. Scouting is not nearly as common as it should be.
2. It's the easiest way to beat lower skilled players than you.
3. It is the easiest way to be uncoordinated teams.

There is nothing wrong with either of these three reasons as they aren't gameplay issues, they're player issues.
1. Scouting is near useless as I begin games expecting the rush, but even if they didn’t I would be in an advantageous position. The problem is that I still have teammates lose their base anyway simply because I don’t have enough units to protect three bases at once against three rushing armies, only two.

2. This has very little to do with skill, as there is almost no counter to a rush that will enable you to turn the tide of the match, and rushing shouldn’t have such a high rate of success.

3. That is subjective. If only one teammate rushed it would fail so coordination is required which is contrary to your point. It is actually easier to coordinate that you will be building up (obvious when your teammates see you building nothing), but the problem is again that any strategy other than rushing isn’t balanced to benefit players and so rushing will be successful anyway.
The reason rushing is so popular is threefold.

1. Scouting is not nearly as common as it should be.
2. It's the easiest way to beat lower skilled players than you.
3. It is the easiest way to be uncoordinated teams.

There is nothing wrong with either of these three reasons as they aren't gameplay issues, they're player issues.
1. Scouting is near useless as I begin games expecting the rush, but even if they didn’t I would be in an advantageous position. The problem is that I still have teammates lose their base anyway simply because I don’t have enough units to protect three bases at once against three rushing armies, only two.

2. This has very little to do with skill, as there is almost no counter to a rush that will enable you to turn the tide of the match, and rushing shouldn’t have such a high rate of success.

3. That is subjective. If only one teammate rushed it would fail so coordination is required which is contrary to your point. It is actually easier to coordinate that you will be building up (obvious when your teammates see you building nothing), but the problem is again that any strategy other than rushing isn’t balanced to benefit players and so rushing will be successful anyway.
1. If you always expect a rush, then why isn't it easy for you to counter? You need far fewer anti-infantry units than they need rush units, setting you ahead economically and in tech.

2. That's just false if we're talking about coordinated teams. If a coordinated team defeats a rush they have a perfect opportunity to tech up, capture nodes, and gain map control.

3. That one actually was a typo lol, I meant to say "It's the easiest way to beat uncoordinated teams."
1. Scouting is near useless as I begin games expecting the rush, but even if they didn’t I would be in an advantageous position. The problem is that I still have teammates lose their base anyway simply because I don’t have enough units to protect three bases at once against three rushing armies, only two.

2. This has very little to do with skill, as there is almost no counter to a rush that will enable you to turn the tide of the match, and rushing shouldn’t have such a high rate of success.

3. That is subjective. If only one teammate rushed it would fail so coordination is required which is contrary to your point. It is actually easier to coordinate that you will be building up (obvious when your teammates see you building nothing), but the problem is again that any strategy other than rushing isn’t balanced to benefit players and so rushing will be successful anyway.
My turn.

1. No, just no. Scouting is not useles. Scouting provides you with all the information you need. It tells you exactly what your opponents are making, and provides you with time to prepare. Preparing for a rush every single game is an awful idea; if you play against a team that quick-techs you'll be far behind, and most likely lose. Moral of the story; scouting = good.

2. Well, uh, there are many counters to rushing. Scout units (mainly Chooppers) do very well, anti-infantry easily gets the job done, many of the heroes can take on entire rushes (with a little support), or you can counter rush. Hell, even Turrets can hold off most rushes (excluding Goliaths/Enforcers). Rushes are incredibly easy to stop, and if you manage to hold, you'll likely be ahead of your opponent(s).

3. From the sounds of this, it sounds like you're solo queuing. This can be problematic, as there's little to no coordination, which complicates things heavily. Breezy is right, it's a lot easy to rush uncoordinated teams (ie solo queue players), due to their poor communication.

My friends and I would be happy to show you how to hold off against rushes. Feel free to add me, my dude!
The reason rushing is so popular is threefold.

1. Scouting is not nearly as common as it should be.
2. It's the easiest way to beat lower skilled players than you.
3. It is the easiest way to be uncoordinated teams.

There is nothing wrong with either of these three reasons as they aren't gameplay issues, they're player issues.
1. Scouting is near useless as I begin games expecting the rush, but even if they didn’t I would be in an advantageous position. The problem is that I still have teammates lose their base anyway simply because I don’t have enough units to protect three bases at once against three rushing armies, only two.

2. This has very little to do with skill, as there is almost no counter to a rush that will enable you to turn the tide of the match, and rushing shouldn’t have such a high rate of success.

3. That is subjective. If only one teammate rushed it would fail so coordination is required which is contrary to your point. It is actually easier to coordinate that you will be building up (obvious when your teammates see you building nothing), but the problem is again that any strategy other than rushing isn’t balanced to benefit players and so rushing will be successful anyway.
1. If you always expect a rush, then why isn't it easy for you to counter? You need far fewer anti-infantry units than they need rush units, setting you ahead economically and in tech.

2. That's just false if we're talking about coordinated teams. If a coordinated team defeats a rush they have a perfect opportunity to tech up, capture nodes, and gain map control.

3. That one actually was a typo lol, I meant to say "It's the easiest way to beat uncoordinated teams."
1. I already explained that I don’t have enough units on my own to counter three players worth of units. Player two and three aren’t always ready for a rush (I don’t know why at this point) and so my damage output isn’t enough to defeat the enemies before they accomplish their objective which I explain in point 2.

2. I would say your statement is false because defeating a rush takes time and during that time two things are occurring: the enemy is preparing a second wave that will reach your base as soon as you deal with the first wave and also your base is being destroyed because even if the whole rush doesn’t destroy you, it will destroy your economy.
Slight edit.

3. Okay.
1. Scouting is near useless as I begin games expecting the rush, but even if they didn’t I would be in an advantageous position. The problem is that I still have teammates lose their base anyway simply because I don’t have enough units to protect three bases at once against three rushing armies, only two.

2. This has very little to do with skill, as there is almost no counter to a rush that will enable you to turn the tide of the match, and rushing shouldn’t have such a high rate of success.

3. That is subjective. If only one teammate rushed it would fail so coordination is required which is contrary to your point. It is actually easier to coordinate that you will be building up (obvious when your teammates see you building nothing), but the problem is again that any strategy other than rushing isn’t balanced to benefit players and so rushing will be successful anyway.
My turn.

1. No, just no. Scouting is not useles. Scouting provides you with all the information you need. It tells you exactly what your opponents are making, and provides you with time to prepare. Preparing for a rush every single game is an awful idea; if you play against a team that quick-techs you'll be far behind, and most likely lose. Moral of the story; scouting = good.

2. Well, uh, there are many counters to rushing. Scout units (mainly Chooppers) do very well, anti-infantry easily gets the job done, many of the heroes can take on entire rushes (with a little support), or you can counter rush. Hell, even Turrets can hold off most rushes (excluding Goliaths/Enforcers). Rushes are incredibly easy to stop, and if you manage to hold, you'll likely be ahead of your opponent(s).

3. From the sounds of this, it sounds like you're solo queuing. This can be problematic, as there's little to no coordination, which complicates things heavily. Breezy is right, it's a lot easy to rush uncoordinated teams (ie solo queue players), due to their poor communication.

My friends and I would be happy to show you how to hold off against rushes. Feel free to add me, my dude!
1. I don’t remember the last time I faced an opponent who quick techs and so thorough scouting naturally went to the backburner, but I should rephrase that I do scout but through snipers and garrisoning them for an early warning. I also never fall behind in tech provided the game lasts that long.

2. I play mostly UNSC and my opponents rush banished with brutes, goliaths, arbiter elites, and choppers in that order of likeliness. Killing them isn’t the problem, but killing them BEFORE they destroy one of our three bases is.

3. I always play 3v3 with randoms if that is what you meant.
In my experience sending a scout to all 3 bases and beaconing their base gives my team enough time to prepare even in solo queue.
1. I don’t remember the last time I faced an opponent who quick techs and so thorough scouting naturally went to the backburner, but I should rephrase that I do scout but through snipers and garrisoning them for an early warning. I also never fall behind in tech provided the game lasts that long.

2. I play mostly UNSC and my opponents rush banished with brutes, goliaths, arbiter elites, and choppers in that order of likeliness. Killing them isn’t the problem, but killing them BEFORE they destroy one of our three bases is.

3. I always play 3v3 with randoms if that is what you meant.
I love his number thing have going on.

Gonna be honest, I'm confident all your problems stem from playing with randoms.

Anyways.

1. With how strong Warthogs are right now, it's common for a Forge, Anders, or Iz to quick-tech into Hogs, while their teammates buy time with whatever units. I think it's more wise to use Marines as map scouts (hold command works wonders for this), as you'll need your Snipers to actually fight the rush. Don't want them on the other side of the map while an army of Flamers are at your door :p.

2. Again, it sounds like you're fighting a 1v3 due to poor communication with your teammates (side effect of solo queuing). You're simply not going to win while you're fighting 2 or more people by yourself. This has nothing to do with rushing and everything to do with your teammates being poor players and/or no communication.

3. Yeah, that's the problem. We can sit here as long as we wish talking about strategy, builds, etc., but none of that matters if you're playing with randoms. They're too unpredictable and it's very challenging to work together.
I played some 3v3s against someone that sent me a hate message after we rush him. We got matched against him again so we just decided to quick tech. Unfortunatly for him he thought we were going to rush so they gave us the field and fell behind on tech giving us an easy win. In both cases, they would have known what they were doing if they ran a scout unit by our base instead of trying to guess.
Always scout at the 2 minute marker. And based off that info... build turret or If they are quick teaching build a 3rd gen on a minibase
1. I don’t remember the last time I faced an opponent who quick techs and so thorough scouting naturally went to the backburner, but I should rephrase that I do scout but through snipers and garrisoning them for an early warning. I also never fall behind in tech provided the game lasts that long.

2. I play mostly UNSC and my opponents rush banished with brutes, goliaths, arbiter elites, and choppers in that order of likeliness. Killing them isn’t the problem, but killing them BEFORE they destroy one of our three bases is.

3. I always play 3v3 with randoms if that is what you meant.
I love his number thing have going on.

Gonna be honest, I'm confident all your problems stem from playing with randoms.

Anyways.

1. With how strong Warthogs are right now, it's common for a Forge, Anders, or Iz to quick-tech into Hogs, while their teammates buy time with whatever units. I think it's more wise to use Marines as map scouts (hold command works wonders for this), as you'll need your Snipers to actually fight the rush. Don't want them on the other side of the map while an army of Flamers are at your door :p.

2. Again, it sounds like you're fighting a 1v3 due to poor communication with your teammates (side effect of solo queuing). You're simply not going to win while you're fighting 2 or more people by yourself. This has nothing to do with rushing and everything to do with your teammates being poor players and/or no communication.

3. Yeah, that's the problem. We can sit here as long as we wish talking about strategy, builds, etc., but none of that matters if you're playing with randoms. They're too unpredictable and it's very challenging to work together.
I think Banished turrets are too weak and UNSC too strong but rushing usually is not the issue still, unless your yap which needs a few very small early games buffs as he cant stop a forced Goliath rush without eco like other leaders as CF will not ve massed enough to do anything and cant just build Heavy Grunts cause they are built from base.
If only 1 or 2 players rush then 3 players should be able to easily hold it.
If every player on the other team is going building killer units, just build nothing but anti infantry units.

Usually a good team will have a mix of units for example: one person goes choppers, one hammer brute's, and the other marines.

The reason why a lot of people rush, is because we don't want to spend 20 minutes having to break gold and platinum level players defenses, just to get 1 point. If my team finds another team of champions who will be a good match, we will play the slow game. Just go for map control and that sort of thing.
As someone who rushes quite frequently, good players have very consistently been able to fend of a rush and push for the win. If done improperly and scouted appropriately, rushes can easily be beaten.
1. It's actually not that hard to counter a rush. Once you counter a rush, you are going to have a good fight perhaps in the mid game.
2. Top players actually often tech 2 early and have one or two of them rush, which is why scouting is still important.
3. The only thing I find difficult to counter at the moment is the fast tech 2 to hogs thingy.
4. As someone who plays in 3s by myself sometimes, it is extremely difficult to win against good players, and when against well coordinated players you have to embrace the fact your team will get crushed hard.

Sorry I had to put the numbers because that's the way to go in this thread lol.
I've been playing competitive 3s on the omega tournaments and around the 3s leaderboard and most of the time when I go against other good teams we rush only to try and throw them off balance, not necessarily to end the game. Sometimes we succeed in taking out someone's main base, sometimes we don't but most of the people that play this game play to win, not to give everyone the opportunity to make it to tech 3 and have a pleasant engagement for the first time at the 15 min mark.
THEWALL766 wrote:
I've been playing competitive 3s on the omega tournaments and around the 3s leaderboard and most of the time when I go against other good teams we rush only to try and throw them off balance, not necessarily to end the game. Sometimes we succeed in taking out someone's main base, sometimes we don't but most of the people that play this game play to win, not to give everyone the opportunity to make it to tech 3 and have a pleasant engagement for the first time at the 15 min mark.
Yes and also if you do win during your rush your opponents weren't a good match for your team so it's ok to end the game early when there's a lack of competition.