179 replies to this topic

[Alucard291]

Atheus, on 06 May 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

Wow, it must feel amazing being above it all like you. You really are trolling these forums and you don't even play the game? I guess there are all sorts of people in the world.

I'm not trolling - if pointing out your fallacies is trolling these days then you really need to lookup the definition of that word.

[Atheus]

Alucard291, on 06 May 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

I'm not trolling - if pointing out your fallacies is trolling these days then you really need to lookup the definition of that word.

You pointed out fallacies? I must have missed it. I did notice you criticize the poll's bias and describe the futility of polling a game community (which is debatable), but that hardly matters. The poll reflects the opinions of the viewers of this thread. PGI alone would have the data needed to determine how reliably that can be extrapolated into the general game population. That does not mean, though, that the poll is meaningless as fodder for discussion here.

[hammerreborn]

Atheus, on 05 May 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

Recently a provocative thread has emerged from a light pilot who loves to use preemptive base capture as a major tactical tool. I'll let the poll speak for itself, for now.

OH LOOK IT'S THIS THREAD AGAIN!!!

And biased poll is biased. Capping the base to split the enemy team is "winning by superior combat skill". Far, far more so than winning because your team brought more poptards and alphawarriors, which are completely lacking in any level of skill.

[Atheus]

hammerreborn, on 06 May 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

OH LOOK IT'S THIS THREAD AGAIN!!!

And biased poll is biased. Capping the base to split the enemy team is "winning by superior combat skill". Far, far more so than winning because your team brought more poptards and alphawarriors, which are completely lacking in any level of skill.

I see - so...

strategically walking onto a base and standing there strategically = skill
aim, movement, predicting enemy movement, maximizing cover while maximizing damage, covering your allies, knowing when to advance and when to retreat, when to split and flank is "lacking in any level of skill"

Fascinatingly absurd.

[Galenit]

Atheus, on 06 May 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

aim, movement, predicting enemy movement, maximizing cover while maximizing damage, covering your allies, knowing when to advance and when to retreat, when to split and flank

I see you know what skills are needed to win. Communication is maybe important too ...

But you missed one important skill, it helps you not winning,
but it helps a lot in not losing against a single mech:
To know when its time to go back to base and defend it.

[hammerreborn]

Atheus, on 06 May 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

I see - so...

strategically walking onto a base and standing there strategically = skill
aim, movement, predicting enemy movement, maximizing cover while maximizing damage, covering your allies, knowing when to advance and when to retreat, when to split and flank is "lacking in any level of skill"

Fascinatingly absurd.

You act like poptards do anything but the first 3.

Covering you allies, LOL ur cute

[Atheus]

Galenit, on 06 May 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

I see you know what skills are needed to win. Communication is maybe important too ...

But you missed one important skill, it helps you not winning,
but it helps a lot in not losing against a single mech:
To know when its time to go back to base and defend it.

"Losing" as you define it doesn't really translate for me. I'll get a lot more cash and xp reward fighting on the front lines than chasing a light around my base, even if staying on the front line results in losing the match. If I turn back and only fight that one light, I'll get squat for my efforts if I don't make it back to the front line to actually kill some stuff. Unlike the C-bills and XP, the win/loss that registers in my stats is completely meaningless and worthless. That "winner" base rusher gets diddly for his amazing show of superior power to weight ratio and combat avoidance skill.

hammerreborn, on 06 May 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

You act like poptards do anything but the first 3.

Covering you allies, LOL ur cute

Even if it's just aim, that's more skill than it takes to walk to the enemy base and stand there. Where are you going with this, anyway? Are you trying to convince me that base rushing requires some sort of noteworthy talent? Just give up.

Edited by Atheus, 06 May 2013 - 08:00 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

Atheus, on 06 May 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

"Losing" as you define it doesn't really translate for me. I'll get a lot more cash and xp reward fighting on the front lines than chasing a light around my base, even if staying on the front line results in losing the match. If I turn back and only fight that one light, I'll get squat for my efforts if I don't make it back to the front line to actually kill some stuff. Unlike the C-bills and XP, the win/loss that registers in my stats is completely meaningless and worthless. That "winner" base rusher gets diddly for his amazing show of superior power to weight ratio and combat avoidance skill.

That's not true. They get progressively higher ELO rating for taking the easy route and with the way ELO is working they probably get progressively worse teammates to make up for their "amazing skill".

[Atheus]

Keifomofutu, on 06 May 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

That's not true. They get progressively higher ELO rating for taking the easy route and with the way ELO is working they probably get progressively worse teammates to make up for their "amazing skill".

True, though I guess that helps my situation too if my ELO drops from the match. I'll be under-rated, wind up on a stronger team, (lol) and mop up the next match for larger profits. Ah the mysteries of ELO!

[Vellinious]

Atheus, on 06 May 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

So since I'm not a cap rusher and I dislike cap rushers, I must be "running head long into the middle part of the map"? I see. I'll chalk you up as another "randomly casts me as a meathead ppc jump sniping assault tactically challenged, small engine fotm clubber".


Wow, it must feel amazing being above it all like you. You really are trolling these forums and you don't even play the game? I guess there are all sorts of people in the world.

If the shoe fits....you certainly seem the type.

[Petroshka]

Any game mode where the rules are spelled out clearly should be played to win, as fast and efficient as possibly, by any means, without cheating or hacking.

I for one, like many others, would like to see an "elimination" game mode alongside the existing ones. Where there are no bases, the match winner is declared after X minutes (by whichever team has the higher score), or whichever side remains alive.

This mode would serve an important secondary purpose: To draw those who would in reality enjoy baseless elimination type matches away from the balance discussion for assault. Those who would instead of pushing for elimination mode, will push to tweak assault into some bastardization half-breed of assault and elimination.

This is not to say that assault mode would suffer from rule tweaking, without losing sight of the fact that capping to split the enemy force should be a fully viable option. If capping becomes too slow, then people will ignore the capper at all times. At the present time, I would say that cap times for a single mech are a bit too fast.

Edited by Petroshka, 06 May 2013 - 02:45 PM.

[Atheus]

Petroshka, on 06 May 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Any game mode where the rules are spelled out clearly should be played to win, as fast and efficient as possibly, by any means, without cheating or hacking.

I for one, like many others, would like to see an "elimination" game mode alongside the existing ones. Where there are no bases, the match winner is declared after X minutes (by whichever team has the higher score), or whichever side remains alive.

This mode would serve an important secondary purpose: To draw those who would in reality enjoy baseless elimination type matches away from the balance discussion for assault. Those who would instead of pushing for elimination mode, will push to tweak assault into some bastardization half-breed of assault and elimination.

This is not to say that assault mode would suffer from rule tweaking, without losing sight of the fact that capping to split the enemy force should be a fully viable option. If capping becomes too slow, then people will ignore the capper at all times. At the present time, I would say that cap times for a single mech are a bit too fast.

Not really helpful in a discussion of the merits of capture as a win objective. The whole point of this thread is not to shame players who use capture extensively, but to gauge just how people feel about capture as an objective when it is used in the most annoying way it can be used — to bypass combat.

Clearly, among thread viewers, the poll indicates at least a simple majority who can't have fun in a match that is capped out without a fight. That indicates the game design includes matches which, for many players, just plain are not fun. If they had the choice, they would not have played. If enough matches like that happen in a row, they will stop playing.

Perhaps if I illustrate it like this. If on the mission loading screen there are other asinine objectives like, find the magic treasure chest, or run a circle around the map once, or crush 5 cars and ring the gong before the fox eats the chicken, or play and win the laser simon mini-game in your base — nobody cares about stupid stuff like this. If such objectives exist, yeah, you can do them if you want and maybe win the match that way, but do these objectives reflect what players want out of a giant fighting robot game? If certain players start focusing on those alternative objectives rather than doing what the majority want to do (fight!) there will be a schism within the player community, and a great deal of skepticism toward the game devs. This is completely appropriate to be critical of game design, so don't act like the loading screen mission objectives are the final word on what the game is all about. That text just came out of discussions like these among the devs, with perhaps a bit less vitriol and hyperbolic ad hominem libel (don't listen to this guy, he's a poptarding slow-assault ex-lrm spamming ppc fotm bloat boating min-maxer who just wants to run into the middle and shoot anything he sees).

Edited by Atheus, 06 May 2013 - 06:54 PM.

[Hellcat420]

would be much better if they put assault down to one base, then made victory conditions either all attackers destroyed or base captured. if time runs out before one of those are met the defenders win(that way attackers cant hide and stall for a tie).

[Davers]

"What is most fun for you?

1. Accomplishing victory through superior firepower.
2. Accomplishing victory through superior tactics.
3. Both"

FTFY

[Atheus]

Davers, on 06 May 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

"What is most fun for you?

1. Accomplishing victory through superior firepower.
2. Accomplishing victory through superior tactics.
3. Both"

FTFY

Firepower/tactics doesn't really indicate we're talking about attacking enemy mechs vs. standing on an undefended base.

An unbiased option would probably look something like:

"accomplishing victory by destroying enemy mechs"
"accomplishing victiory by capturing the enemy base"

But at this point I just don't care all that much. This thread has run its course. It's not a stretch to call premature base capture "victory through superior movement speed" anyway, snarky as it may be. The zero or low death matches usually occur because the losing team didn't have fast mechs that could return to base with little inconvenience.

Edited by Atheus, 06 May 2013 - 08:34 PM.

[Galenit]

Atheus, on 06 May 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

Firepower/tactics doesn't really indicate we're talking about attacking enemy mechs vs. standing on an undefended base.

Find the weak spot and engage there is one of the fundamental tactics in every fight.
Letting your base alone is opening a weak spot to your defense.

If the enemy uses it, he forces you to react, dictating the way of the fight.
Splitting the enemy force (firepower) and using their weakness (slowness) against them is both a traditional tactic.

Its tactics, then firepower what decides fights.

Sunzi say something (a lot of things, but i dont want to quote them all) about tactics:

Quote

I. LAYING PLANS
23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them.

24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
you are not expected.

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html


A little test in the end.
What does Sunzi say about supreme excellence and who does it fit in this discussion?

Edited by Galenit, 07 May 2013 - 02:52 AM.

[Atheus]

Galenit, on 07 May 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

Find the weak spot and engage there is one of the fundamental tactics in every fight.
Letting your base alone is opening a weak spot to your defense.

If the enemy uses it, he forces you to react, dictating the way of the fight.
Splitting the enemy force (firepower) and using their weakness (slowness) against them is both a traditional tactic.

Its tactics, then firepower what decides fights.

Sunzi say something (a lot of things, but i dont want to quote them all) about tactics:

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html


A little test in the end.
What does Sunzi say about supreme excellence and who does it fit in this discussion?

Right, but what would Sun Tzu say if it were just a game, doing what's necessary to win the match results in having less fun and RTB is individually less profitable? I'll tell you. He'd probably just say, "**** 'em, just do whatever is more fun."

[hammerreborn]

Atheus, on 07 May 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

Right, but what would Sun Tzu say if it were just a game, doing what's necessary to win the match results in having less fun and RTB is individually less profitable? I'll tell you. He'd probably just say, "**** 'em, just do whatever is more fun."

Just because its less fun for you doesn't mean it's less fun for me. Don't like it **** off or stop playing. You don't see light pilots asking to change the modes where killing the enemy isn't a winning condition at all.

Edited by hammerreborn, 07 May 2013 - 06:13 AM.

[Atheus]

hammerreborn, on 07 May 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

Just because its less fun for you doesn't mean it's less fun for me. Don't like it **** off or stop playing. You don't see light pilots asking to change the modes where killing the enemy isn't a winning condition at all.

Only people who support the status quo are allowed to talk, huh? You're precious.

Edit: Sounds a little bit like

hammerreborn, on 06 May 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!!!!

Edited by Atheus, 07 May 2013 - 06:28 AM.

[Curccu]

Atheus, on 06 May 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

It's superior tactics, huh? Are you sure it's not just stepping on the enemy cap because it's the easiest and lowest risk thing a light can do short of shutting down on the edge of the map somewhere? I joke, but I recognize that base rushing or base tapping is "tactical", however so is moving in formation, setting up a firing line, claiming high ground or spotting for an LRM boat. I honestly don't mind changing the question, but "superior tactics" is a pretty broad net when you're really just talking about base capping vs. victory through combat.

If enemy is base tapping/capping it gives you about 3 options:
1. let them cap --> lose the game.
2. split your forces.
3. fall back to base with full force and give up your position.
So yes its tactical and buggies very very often choose that 1st option.

superior tactics = victory by any means within game rules. capping is just one of the many ways to win.

PS. I don't mind going down if it helps my team to win more than staying alive.