Maybe it's time to stop blaming Subs and CV's on passive gameplay.

[The_Angry_Admiral]

Just now, neDomce said:

I play passively, because I am not able to technically perform risky tasks. For example:

1) I want to enter a driveby with an enemy BB - I am not sure I can avoid getting rammed; so I stay away and farm his superstructure till he dies
2) I want to bowtank and throttle-juke while in a heavy cruiser (Riga, Moskva); I get burned by HE because I am too predictable. better stay back and get more shell flighttime to evade shots
3) I want to use my armor belt to bounce 406s in a Salem (Des Moines). I will turn too much/too little and get deleted by some BB on the spot

4) I want to farm enemy BBs in a Groningen, but get torped all the time because I am unable to evaluate fast enough on how to maneuver

5) I want to farm while in a Mogador but I get nuked by enemy cruisers because I am outspotted all the time and cannot predict enemy dd position

 

Therefore, a way to enjoy the game is to either a) risk it and potentially lose your ship and game, or b) play safe, where you know you can adequately execute the (rather lame) plan. 
 

None of your examples require passive play. 

[neDomce]

1 minute ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

None of your examples require passive play. 

English is not my first language, so it may have been unclear what I wanted to say. I gave examples of ACTIVE GAMEPLAY which I AM UNABLE TO PERFORM due to POOR SKILL. Therefore, i PLAY PASSIVELY. 

[The_Angry_Admiral]

2 minutes ago, neDomce said:

English is not my first language, so it may have been unclear what I wanted to say. I gave examples of ACTIVE GAMEPLAY which I AM UNABLE TO PERFORM due to POOR SKILL. Therefore, i PLAY PASSIVELY. 

I think the issue is more around how passive play is defined. Playing smart is not playing passive. 

[Echo_519]

Vor 14 Stunden, Horatio_Hornblaeser sagte:

While it's a slow paced shooter, reaction time is not meaningless if you don't play laid back CV or BB. Most important is map awareness though and the ability to predict, where the enemy is gonna move to and out of which direction torpedos are to be expected. Positioning ist then the next important skill to master, but you can overthink positioning as well.

And still you can't describe any situatuin where having 20ms better reaction then the oponents wins you a fight... All you just mentioned has to do with positioning and NOT reaction. What is a situation where reaction decides?, Well, in a FPS game, when you rush into a building knowing/suspecting the doorway is camped. It's down to less then 100ms to start and end the fight, and the one with slight better reaction usually wins. Having a better position only has little effect when the other guy knows where you are. In most FPS games, Having better reaction wins you fights. That obviously includes seeing your opponents first, so shooting someone facing away from you adds to their reaction time, so you have a gigantic advantage. On top of that, in any FPS game, it does not matter from where you shoot at your opponent. There is no angling. Getting shot from the front or the side has you die as quickly. Not in this game. Being angled increases your survivability a lot. In WOWS, having a 20ms better reaction then you enemy does not give a any real advantage, The cases where this applies are so rare. This inlcudes that you re lways limited by your turrettraverse. Even the fastest turret traverses in this game are to slow to keep up with reaction having a big meaning. 

Vor 15 Stunden, Horatio_Hornblaeser sagte:

That's the same though with the sniper and radar positions in this game. WIth some experience you know where most of the red team is gonna trying to be.

No it's not. Having a strong position in WOWS givea you a must higher advantage then in any FPS game. One shot into the face and you're dead in a FPS game. Your position does not really matter. You can not tank damage in FPS games. 1 bullet is enough to get you out of your good position. So being in a strong position has you spotted much easier, being unpredictable can be much better in many situations for reasons mentioned above. In WOWS, knowing where an enemy is and having that enemy spotted and being able to shoot them is not the same thing. You can't shoot at a guy without line of sight in a FPS game. Not so much of a problem in WOWS. Many cruisers, like US-cruisers, work like that. You use islnds for your protection. You can shoot over the island, but still be unspotted and can't be shot back reliably.... And even if you are spotted, you won't die within one bullet. You actually can tank in this game, anging matters. So killing someone in a good posision is much easier. Time to kill is not round 100ms. It's minutes. It takes minutes to get someone out of a good position even when spotted. Any FPS game, around 100ms. So positioning is so much more important in wOWS then any FPS game. 

Vor 15 Stunden, Horatio_Hornblaeser sagte:

And how is this different from any other shooter? If you play team versus teams with chosen players, true cooperation and tactical goals, thats something completly different than your random BF or CoD round. There the team which does the smallest mistake might lose, just because of this single mistake. Barely different from warships. Though through the randomness of teams in most game modes the team with the least grave mistakes is gonna win. So again all the same.

Well, no, it clearly depends on the gamemode. With the FPS games, i'm looking at the gaamemodes WITH respawn. In those modes, the teams with the better players win becuse doing mistkes does not lose you the battle. Sure, dying nonstop does not make you have a big influence, but being bad and dying constantly, or being bad and playing passive/not dying is a huge difference in a FPS game. Even when you die constantly, being active still has your enemies spend time on you. Playing bad and passive, well, you don't make your opponents spend any time on you, so they just concentrate on the caps to win the game. So being active despite being bad is better for your team. Not quite the sme in WOWS. Yoloing into the cap, you just die and then you're tem lost 8.3% of it's firepower permanently. So here, being active and bad is worse for your team. Sure, being passive and bad is not good either, but still better then getting sunk in the first 3 minutes. Even the biggest potato can get random citadels and even devestating strikes, as long as they stay alive. 

Same goes with modes in FPS game with only one life. Having only one life makes you play more passive naturally. Just analyse. You will see that in gamemodes with respwn, the first kill happens much quicker in average. Why? Well, because having only one life promotes passive gameplay. Having respawn has no negative impact when you yolorush and just die.

On top of that, in FPS games, you can force your opponent to make a move. Just throw a grenade or molotiv. So they have to move, or else they just die. So someone hiding inside a building/corner, easy way to make them move. In WOWS.... Well, when is the last time you forced someone into the open? I can take a wooster and stay being cover all battle long. There is nothing you can do you force me to come out behind my cover and go open water gunboating. So, you being able to shoot at me is solely based on me making the decision to let you be able to shoot at me. Nothing you do, you're just all passive. I decide whether you can shoot me or not. You have no choice in this. So it's my mistake that enable you to shoot me. You're completely passive and waiting for mistakes.... 

Or in other words:

Games/Modes with respawn: Good players win the battles for their teams.

Games/Modes without respawn: Bad players lose the battles for their teams.

Vor 15 Stunden, Horatio_Hornblaeser sagte:

If someone would follow all the advices out there to not get sunk, this clearly leads to bordersurfing and backline camping. So i'm somewhat not surprised. If that's still fun for anyone, like any game you play in your leisure time should be, that i leave to be decided be others.

Sure. But that's not the point. Many people are too passive. But that does not change the fact that the game is designed to be a rather passive game. 

Vor 16 Stunden, Horatio_Hornblaeser sagte:

But there is a difference between being "defensive" and being "passive". Being passive means not to do much at all and wait for the move of the enemy to react. So no action on themselves, just reaction to everything. And yes, this might be the safer option for people without clue, what to do. But always staying passive will neither enable anyone to learn and progress in their skillset nor will anything happen, if both sides pull this off at large. Something that can be often seen in high tiers, when nobody plays for the caps and if someone does, they usually win, since their is no tactic to reclaim them. Being defensive means taking good positions to lure the enemy into traps when he advances.

Well, i'll dissargee here. It's like the bycicle and two wheels. A bycicle has two wheels, but something that has two wheels is not a bycicle, might also be a motorbike or a car that misses two wheels(for whatever reason).

So, from my view, playing defensive is always playing passive at the same time. But plying passive is not always playing defensive. 

Vor 16 Stunden, Horatio_Hornblaeser sagte:

That's why you have a ticket system ticking in counterstrike, battlefield and co. K/D-ratio is important there, just like here damage done and ships sunk. Every advanced player won't just yolo in those shooters, just like in Warships.

Again i have to disagree. Except for some special gamemmode, i've actually never seen the tickets to run out. All modes where you get points from caps do not require tiekcts, so even if there are, they are so high you usully don't run out(in my experience from FPS games). 

Vor 16 Stunden, Horatio_Hornblaeser sagte:

The real difference is again, how many others you can take down, before you get down. That's the baseline in both types of games. In BF for example you need to get a high k/d-ratio to win and to hold a decent amount of caps. In WoWs you need to get high amounts of damage done, ships sunk and/or caps captured to win. But just with a single life. So you need to plan better what to do, since there is no retry in that round. At the same time doing nothing (beeing passive) is among the worst thing you can do, besides yolo rushing and pointlessly sinking. While being passive as a baddie might enable the good players to carry the round without worrying to much about their own guys evaporating, at the same time it means that this passive person does nothing for victory besides not sinking. That why we have those steam rolls. On the one side team ostly passive-yolo on the other side team mostly decent.

You are completely missing out on one thing. Time to Kill. FPS games have round 100ms TTK. WOWS, well, depending on the ship and angling, several minutes. Something FPS games do not have. No need to catch someones broadside. Shooting them from front does at much damage as shooting from the side. And because TTK is so low, it is absolutely possible to yolorush someone, kill them, take no damage in return and move back to cover. Spotting, iming, shooting and getting a kill is done in less then one seconds often. When's the lst time you killed someone in less then 1 seconds after spotting them in WOWS? May i guess? Exception of some absolutely randomly dropped torps, never!? 

Vor 16 Stunden, Horatio_Hornblaeser sagte:

If you look at all the pros at KotS there are a few really interesting things happening:

• there is the positioning at the usual spots for heavy AP-crossfires
• there is the positioning at the usual spots for radar cover
• there are a few, very short and very deadly engagements between the spotters (DDs), which completly decide the whole game

That's why the big pro-clans protested so long about CVs in CW or KotS, because they kinda losen up the whole static positioning and sniping and bring it an uncalculated risk for the usual tactics.

No, the reason they don't want CV's is because it's a onesided gameplay. The CV delivers damage to the surfaceship, but the surfaceship does nothing to the CV. And that only increased after the rework with nerfed AA and unlimited planes. You claim that CV's in kots would mke the battles more active, but you re completely wrong. Kots usually is played at medium ranges due to being able to cover behind islands. CV's being ble to fly round islands, you can never ever be in a position to not be struck by the CV. The only thing a CV does in Kots is make the battles change from medium to super long ranges. Why you ask, i'll tell you:

As we already mentioned, There is no position on the map that makes it impossible for the CV to drop you. And as Cv's average damage is very depending on the angle, being stationarry has the CV do maximum damage. The only way to deal with CV's to some smll extend is chnging direction after he lunched an attack. But, what heppens if you dodge the CV's attack when you're fighting at medium range to the enemy surfaceships in open water? Exactly, you might reduce the damage -you take from the CV, but you just get guaranteed devstruck by the rest of his team. So what you would actually do is stay 7-10km further away from the enemy surfaceships, because then, due to the longer range, you can reduce the dmg from the CV a bit by dodging and you won't get guaranteeddevstruck by the rest of his team due to longer range having longer shell travel time, less penetration, and higher disperion. So having CV's in kots would just make that every single one would be sailing around in their spawn and never get any closer untill the battle is well dicided. 

You re under the impression that active gameplay=ship is moving.???? But this is wrong. It does not matter how fast you are moving, if the closest enemy to you is 20km away, you are passive, too passive, not matter if you are moving at 30 knots average.

The only way CV's could work in kots of CV's were designed with the dutch airstrike mechanic. This actually might might work in terms of balancing CV's for competitive. Because then islandcover would actually work against CV's.... So the reason why CV's mke gameplay even more passive then what the game is already designed to do is because they are so ridiculous stupidly broken overpowered, alwys being capable of creating crossfire. And the only way to survive being crossfired is staying at long range, as ships dying loses you the battles....

Vor 2 Stunden, The_Angry_Admiral sagte:

CV's and Subs will get to you know matter what you do so how is playing passive supposed to mitigate that? 

Because it takes them longer to get to you, and you won't guaranteed get devstruck by the rest of their team if you dodge their attck. Whether you re 10km away from the enemy surfceships or 20km does not make a difference for the sub. The difference is, when you try to dodge the subs torps, showing brodside won't get you punished nearly as much at 20km compared to 10km, obviously. Same with CV's as mentioned above. You just don't understand the absolute basics of how things hang together. 

[ColonelPete]

2 hours ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

I do read it and it usually makes no sense because it doesn't fit. 

 

Explain what benefit playing passive against CV's and Subs gives?

Other people understand it...

• staying in front of a Sub is problematic, as it makes it much harder to evade torps, you also get spotted for a long time without the benefit of getting the Sub or reducing its threat
• it is a better option to push against other parts of the enemy team as you can fight enemies there AND evade the threat of the Sub - fighting Subs after most of the enemy team is eliminated is much easier
• pushing against a CV just increaes its DPM against you, you also have to choose between dodging air attacks and showing broadside to other enemies
• with increased distance to the CV, you decrease its DPM, might lure in enemy ships, which increases the DPM of your CV and it is also easier to dodge enemy air attacks, while evading enemy fire

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

not really. besides there is a thing called turtleback. 

Well you need to face someone in BB with improved aiming and prediction skills then. 

They exist, and then sometimes things end badly. But most of the time, at 15+ kms, I'm fine. 👍 Last few weeks I find myself in 17+ km duels with BB's in such ships as Hindenburg, Goliath, Nevsky, and even DM. And I'm getting pretty decent at duking, dodging, disengaging for a bit, and just generally frustrating the hell out of the oponent. So sure, if I happen to be up against someone really good, he's probably gonna wipe me out. The other 98% I win the damage contest.

 

And turtlebacks work some/much of the time, at short to medium range. I don't know why you even mention this, no ship is immune from getting citadelled and everyone who's played T8 BB's and above knows this.

[The_Angry_Admiral]

27 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Other people understand it...

• staying in front of a Sub is problematic, as it makes it much harder to evade torps, you also get spotted for a long time without the benefit of getting the Sub or reducing its threat
• it is a better option to push against other parts of the enemy team as you can fight enemies there AND evade the threat of the Sub - fighting Subs after most of the enemy team is eliminated is much easier
• pushing against a CV just increaes its DPM against you, you also have to choose between dodging air attacks and showing broadside to other enemies
• with increased distance to the CV, you decrease its DPM, might lure in enemy ships, which increases the DPM of your CV and it is also easier to dodge enemy air attacks, while evading enemy fire

Everything you have listed here has absolutely nothing to do with passive gameplay. 

 

Gaining DPM in a CV doesn't just mean how many planes you can attack with - you also have fire and flooding that can add to DPM not to mention that planes are getting faster and faster as well as CV's actually moving to close that distance so your argument about creating distance just falls flat. Also by staying alone with minimize damage to planes thereby allowing them to possible give two full passes. 

[BrusilovX]

1 hour ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

I think the issue is more around how passive play is defined. Playing smart is not playing passive. 

Except when playing smart means a BB hides behind an island all battle.

 

You need to define what 'passive play' and 'playing smart' is before using those terms.

[BrusilovX]

Just now, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Everything you have listed here has absolutely nothing to do with passive gameplay. 

Have you defined what 'passive play' entails?

[The_Angry_Admiral]

2 minutes ago, BrusilovX said:

Have you defined what 'passive play' entails?

I'm using passive play in this argument as to players just sitting in the back and not moving forward because they don't know what they don't want their paint scratched or they begin kiting the moment they see a ship when they don't have to.

 

Any excuse to head towards the back and say their favourite Youtuber told them to. 

[The_Angry_Admiral]

5 minutes ago, BrusilovX said:

Have you defined what 'passive play' entails?

There is zero evidence to show hanging out in the back mitigates CV's and subs. 

[ghostbuster_]

28 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

They exist, and then sometimes things end badly. But most of the time, at 15+ kms, I'm fine. 👍 Last few weeks I find myself in 17+ km duels with BB's in such ships as Hindenburg, Goliath, Nevsky, and even DM. And I'm getting pretty decent at duking, dodging, disengaging for a bit, and just generally frustrating the hell out of the oponent. So sure, if I happen to be up against someone really good, he's probably gonna wipe me out. The other 98% I win the damage contest.

 

And turtlebacks work some/much of the time, at short to medium range. I don't know why you even mention this, no ship is immune from getting citadelled and everyone who's played T8 BB's and above knows this.

Yes i know that. What im saying is its just a bad mechanic which makes BBs more forgiving. Thats why i mentioned it. Also lowered citadels help BBs to be more forgiving. 

 

Edit. Besides even german BBs can be citadeled at close range despite having turtleback. They just need to be slightly angled and you can citadel them by penning the weak spot under turrets. Anyone with decent gameknowladge knows that.

[ColonelPete]

25 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Everything you have listed here has absolutely nothing to do with passive gameplay. 

 

Gaining DPM in a CV doesn't just mean how many planes you can attack with - you also have fire and flooding that can add to DPM not to mention that planes are getting faster and faster as well as CV's actually moving to close that distance so your argument about creating distance just falls flat. Also by staying alone with minimize damage to planes thereby allowing them to possible give two full passes. 

• how is increasing your distance to CV not passive?
• how is increasing your distance to Subs not passive?

DPM means how much time the planes spend on flying around or are attacking enemies. The more the planes have to fly around, the less the DPM, the less they cause fires and flooding. And nobody said anything about staying alone. Did you never notice ships blobs far away fromn the enemy?

18 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

There is zero evidence to show hanging out in the back mitigates CV's and subs. 

I only explained it to you...

53 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Other people understand it...

We cannot make you understand.

[Bear__Necessities]

7 hours ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

I'm using passive play in this argument as to players just sitting in the back and not moving forward

And that is the right option in many cases. You just can't or don't want to see that. 

[SodaBubbles]

11 hours ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

The problem I see is people say CV's and Subs create passive play but nobody ever explains why because it's BS in a way.

 

 

Be serious. There have been reams of analysis explaining why CVs and subs drive passive play. You may ignore it if you like, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist.

[The_Angry_Admiral]

31 minutes ago, Bear__Necessities said:

And that is the right option in many cases. You just can't or don't want to see that. 

Mmmmmm no it's not actually because people are aware of people just sitting in the back so they push as a team, take the caps, then shoot those with their backs against the wall.

[The_Angry_Admiral]

18 minutes ago, SodaBubbles said:

 

Be serious. There have been reams of analysis explaining why CVs and subs drive passive play. You may ignore it if you like, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist.

Show me then. I hear about it a lot but nobody provides concrete evidence that isn't debunked. Most of it is a false mentality.

[FukushuNL]

CV and subs might not be the cause of people initially stayed back in th past, but they aren't helping the situation either.

On the contrary, the situation only gets worse. After the umphteened time getting r*ped by (a combination of radars and) CVs with only the brillant power of "just dodge" on your side and no chance of retalliation, or with constant pinging and spotting while nothing can be seen, or dodged, staying in the back really becomes the best place to be with your ship. That or uninstalled.

[_Kokushibo_]

1 hour ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Show me then. I hear about it a lot but nobody provides concrete evidence that isn't debunked. Most of it is a false mentality.

It is known, Khaleesi.

[Bear__Necessities]

Why bother making a thread. Again. And insulting and out right dismissing everything and everyone who part takes in the thread. Again.......

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

10 hours ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Show me then. I hear about it a lot but nobody provides concrete evidence that isn't debunked. Most of it is a false mentality.

Here's a list I came up with on the top of my head. Debunk away. 

 

Contributing to passive meta

• No respawn matchup (core feature)
• Long shooting range of the game's main damage tank class (core feature)
• Low detection ranges of alpha capable dd class (fixed by hydro, radar, modules, captain skills and the class itself)
• Speed and detection by carrier squadrons (broken)
• Regular citadel mechanics (Fixed by turtle backs but hindered by overmatch)
• Linear design of battle modes - forward ship gets all the focus ('Fixed' for some lines by fuel smoke)
• Instant detection counter measures of submarines (broken)
• More...

25 minutes ago, Bear__Necessities said:

Why bother making a thread. Again. And insulting and out right dismissing everything and everyone who part takes in the thread. Again.......

The disdain in general is abrasive. It's arrogance without merit.

 

[ghostbuster_]

10 hours ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Show me then. I hear about it a lot but nobody provides concrete evidence that isn't debunked. Most of it is a false mentality.

maybe tell us what kind of an evidence you want to see? do you want a replay or statement from high skill players or screenshots? what do you seek for? 

 

first of all you gotta understand that CVs and subs are not the only reason for more passive play, but two of the reasons.

if you want I can share a replay when I get home. MM gave me perfect opportunity to push in my BB since the factors for me to play more careful/passive didnt exist. 2 of these factors being subs and CVs. the rest you can see yourself. 

[The_Angry_Admiral]

7 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

 

first of all you gotta understand that CVs and subs are not the only reason for more passive play, but one of the reasons.

Passive play against subs and CV's don't make any sense as they can get to you no problem and if you are caught out alone (which I do all the time in my Hornet) their AA is usually not adequate enough (with the right skills taken to make my planes withstand more AA) I can get two full passes with one group of planes. Explain how exactly playing passive has helped here.

 

Now that submarines are faster and can stay underwater longer and go from one end of the map to the other remaining undetected how exactly does playing passive help you in this situation?

 

I don't care about anything outside of subs and CV's at the moment as this is about the false mentality that is planted where if you see a CV and/or submarine in the line up with need to auto play passive by hanging in the back. 

[ghostbuster_]

57 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Passive play against subs and CV's don't make any sense as they can get to you no problem and if you are caught out alone (which I do all the time in my Hornet) their AA is usually not adequate enough (with the right skills taken to make my planes withstand more AA) I can get two full passes with one group of planes. Explain how exactly playing passive has helped here.

 

Now that submarines are faster and can stay underwater longer and go from one end of the map to the other remaining undetected how exactly does playing passive help you in this situation?

 

I don't care about anything outside of subs and CV's at the moment as this is about the false mentality that is planted where if you see a CV and/or submarine in the line up with need to auto play passive by hanging in the back. 

I think you have a serious lack of game understanding, which is fine but the problem here, you are completely closed to any input which might help you. let me try one last time. 

 

first of all lets define passive play. as far as I understood, for you passive play means staying at back line without any reason to do so. I mean camping for no reason is indeed a bad thing. but sometimes you gotta play more passive then usual. an example: (in that example im gonna leave out every other factor and focus only on CV) you are in a DD and there is a CV. if there wasnt a CV, you would go and contest the cap while spotting for your team in the process. but since there is a CV and you see him flying towards your side of the map, getting into the cap right away means telling CV "hey, CV, Im right here come and deal damage to me or spot me". in this case you might want to play more careful which might also be called more passive and try to spot for team without being aggresive. being patient is always a good. Im not sayin you need to stay next to your BBs or anything that would be a really bad play. An other example, Im in radar cruiser and I want to get to an aggresive position to be a huge threat for enemy DDs, where I can use the terrain and stay safe. If there is a CV, its wise not to try get into that aggresive position right away since I would be vulnerable to CV attacks. What I can do is palying more passive and be patient until I get myself to that very aggresive position. Its really hard to explain because there are so many factors in this game. if I leave out all of them but CVs, it doesnt really make that much sense. but I tried to do this since you said, you dont care about anything but CVs or subs. 

 

now to your question: being an aggresive position means, its way easier for CV to reach you. yes CV can reach you even if you are at the other edge of the map. but by playing more passive/careful than usual, you would increase your chance to survive longer against CV since the CV wouldnt be able to strike you that easly because you are not in a vulnerable position. Im repeating, by playing passive I dont mean camping at the very back and being absolutely useless. 

 

pushing against a sub is something else. if you push against a sub, she can literally sit there and keep spamming torps. this would mean making subs life easier, since its easier to torp a target if that target, you want to torp, pushes towards you.  thats why you should be more careful and be patient until you get your opportunity to push.

 

again, I think your understanding of passive gameplay is kinda wrong since passive gameplay doesnt always mean camping at the very back. 

 

btw. what kind of evidence do you want to see? or do you just want to keep repeating yourself and keep asking for evidence? 

[JohnMac79]

This reminds me of those players that charge in and suicide one at a time even though you are winning, because... reasons.

 

As others have said, i think 'playing smart' and 'passive play' needs clear definition, as camping at the back and/or not pushing is often the smart choice.