396 replies to this topic

[Ewigan]

Little Anecdote to all this:

Last weekend i was running with soem of the Comguards (yes, i am a Comguard now). We played 4 Mans all day, no Syncdropping, if we would have been 8 we would have started an 8 man.

ANYWAY, in one of the games, we wait for all players to get ready, we see "liao, liao, liao, liao, liao, lia, liao, lnw", and are greeted with a few heartfelt "SQWAK"s and an "hello from the GOONS".

Naturally the 4 of us go "uhoh, we are screwed".
We were 2 Lights, 1 Medium and one Heavy btw, Map was Alpine. We started on the lower base.

The two lights (one of them being me) decided to try to split them up by capping, our medium tailed us.
so we ran there, started to cap. The goons did what everyone does on Alpine: build up a firing line and start dismembering fools that run right into them. What the rest of our team did.

So the two of us were sitting on ther base. and sitting. and sitting. Our Medium got to us. Still no Goon in sight.
At SOME point one Cataphract started to close in. He was at 1400m when we won by capping.

We got a "rude" comment, before we left.

[Void Angel]

Sam Slade, on 13 May 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

...and we get down to the core of your post; 'I wanna pew pew and not think about defending so your capping is bad for me'. That educatiuon centre... I hope you kept the phone number...

EDIT: Spelt education wrong... leaving it because it's indicative of these forums

You also spelled "spelled" wrong, but why quibble when you can make snidely hypocritical comments about "these forums," and engage in straw man sophistry? My reasoning in this and other threads stands on its own merit. Perhaps, instead of smugly dishonest trolling, you might try using some kind of reasoning yourself?

[Void Angel]

Ewigan, on 13 May 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

Little Anecdote to all this:

Last weekend i was running with soem of the Comguards (yes, i am a Comguard now). We played 4 Mans all day, no Syncdropping, if we would have been 8 we would have started an 8 man.

ANYWAY, in one of the games, we wait for all players to get ready, we see "liao, liao, liao, liao, liao, lia, liao, lnw", and are greeted with a few heartfelt "SQWAK"s and an "hello from the GOONS".

Naturally the 4 of us go "uhoh, we are screwed".
We were 2 Lights, 1 Medium and one Heavy btw, Map was Alpine. We started on the lower base.

The two lights (one of them being me) decided to try to split them up by capping, our medium tailed us.
so we ran there, started to cap. The goons did what everyone does on Alpine: build up a firing line and start dismembering fools that run right into them. What the rest of our team did.

So the two of us were sitting on ther base. and sitting. and sitting. Our Medium got to us. Still no Goon in sight.
At SOME point one Cataphract started to close in. He was at 1400m when we won by capping.

We got a "rude" comment, before we left.

Squawkers deserve what they get - they're often just bluster in any case. Last pug I was in against squawkers, we cut them to ribbons.

[Kaijin]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 12 May 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

If a games population exploits certain mechanics en masse then the game is not balanced (like right now)

People naturally roll what is overpowered, and guess whats overpowered right now?

We need an actual solution.

An actual solution would be for tonnage-matching to be put back in, and perhaps even enhanced a bit. 2 Lights, 3 Mediums, 2 Heavies, and 1 Assault seems about right.

[Caustic Canid]

Void Angel, on 13 May 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

On that note, using CapWarrior tactics on the large maps is just short of bug abuse, and you should feel bad for doing it. There is no effective way for a PuG team to ensure that they have all of the approaches covered without dispersing their combat power to an untenable degree. Particularly on Tourmaline, but to some degree on both maps, playing CapWarrior to passive-aggressively punish people because you don't know how to pilot your light simply makes use of a cap timer that is currently too short for the map size.

While I agree that the capture system may need improvement, people shouldn't feel bad about using it. If I saw the whole enemy team in slow assaults in the middle of the map, and my team was severely outgunned, I would cap too. I'm not just gonna feed your k/d cause you're in bigger 'mechs. Just sayin'.

[Livewyr]

Void Angel, on 13 May 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

I am so sorry for your situation, and would like to encourage you that all is not lost. Remedial education, particularly in mathematics and logical thought, is available at an institution of higher learning near you!

In fact, allow me to start you on your journey into a wider world by explaining to you the actual reason that teams stick together: It's effective! See, if you split up your team into "maneuver groups," you split your firepower in most cases. Then, when your team runs into a team that's actually moving as a team (less their scouts, of course,) they blast you down and take significantly less damage than you did. This is because of a phenomenon called "focus fire." It gets a little complicated to explain, but basically if four identical 'mechs fought two other identical 'mechs, the smaller team would lose both their 'mechs, and the bigger team might not lose any! The faster you can kill an enemy, the less damage they can do to you before they die. That means it's really tough to win a fight if half your team is off "maneuvering" somewhere. This is also why detailing a force to guard your base is not a viable tactic.

Of course, tactics is a fun and complicated discipline, as you're sure to find out as you continue your education! You actually had some good ideas about going around the enemy when people are camping somewhere in cover with a kill zone in front of them. It may be surprising, but did you know that most every map has a way to get around places like that without being shot at? Most times, you can even get close enough to use brawling weapons on those pesky sniper 'Mechs! Simply running to their base and trying to cap it is usually bad, though. Not only do you deny your team the benefit of your recon and combat support, but you also can get hammered pretty hard when their fast 'mechs come back to base in order to stomp on you. It's much better to start capping in order to pull some of their team out of position, and then leave their base before you can be destroyed!

There's lots more to be learned before you become a qualified MechWarrior, but I'm sure you'll make it, with long study hours and lots of hard work! Let's review what we've learned so far!

• You are not qualified to hold forth on the metagame - the practice of grouping up is common because it is necessitated by the dynamics of force-on-force actions. You seem ignorant of the mechanical reasons for the current PuG tactical methodology, and have made up your own fairy tale explanation out of whole cloth.
  
• There is no conspiracy on the part of mean Assault and Heavy pilots to browbeat you into playing to their strengths. The reason that nearly every pilot in the game screams at you when you play CapWarrior is that it's not any fun to play like that, not because they're mean nerd-jocks trying to make your brave, smart tactics "socially unacceptable."
  
• On that note, using CapWarrior tactics on the large maps is just short of bug abuse, and you should feel bad for doing it. There is no effective way for a PuG team to ensure that they have all of the approaches covered without dispersing their combat power to an untenable degree. Particularly on Tourmaline, but to some degree on both maps, playing CapWarrior to passive-aggressively punish people because you don't know how to pilot your light simply makes use of a cap timer that is currently too short for the map size.

I hope that this educational brochure has been helpful to you, and that we'll see you again once you've attained a basic level of competence! See you on the battlefield!

You forgot a lesson to add:
"If the light or medium on your team decides to go and cap because he's completely outgunned by the effective blob, call the little **** out on being the dumb*** coward he is."

You got close with "bug abuse" (using maneuverability is bug abuse...Assault Racket)

So very enlightening.

I've probably forgotten more about tactics and warfare than you know.

[Zacharyne]

Void Angel, on 13 May 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

I am so sorry for your situation, and would like to encourage you that all is not lost. Remedial education, particularly in mathematics and logical thought, is available at an institution of higher learning near you!

In fact, allow me to start you on your journey into a wider world by explaining to you the actual reason that teams stick together: It's effective! See, if you split up your team into "maneuver groups," you split your firepower in most cases. Then, when your team runs into a team that's actually moving as a team (less their scouts, of course,) they blast you down and take significantly less damage than you did. This is because of a phenomenon called "focus fire." It gets a little complicated to explain, but basically if four identical 'mechs fought two other identical 'mechs, the smaller team would lose both their 'mechs, and the bigger team might not lose any! The faster you can kill an enemy, the less damage they can do to you before they die. That means it's really tough to win a fight if half your team is off "maneuvering" somewhere. This is also why detailing a force to guard your base is not a viable tactic.

Of course, tactics is a fun and complicated discipline, as you're sure to find out as you continue your education! You actually had some good ideas about going around the enemy when people are camping somewhere in cover with a kill zone in front of them. It may be surprising, but did you know that most every map has a way to get around places like that without being shot at? Most times, you can even get close enough to use brawling weapons on those pesky sniper 'Mechs! Simply running to their base and trying to cap it is usually bad, though. Not only do you deny your team the benefit of your recon and combat support, but you also can get hammered pretty hard when their fast 'mechs come back to base in order to stomp on you. It's much better to start capping in order to pull some of their team out of position, and then leave their base before you can be destroyed!

There's lots more to be learned before you become a qualified MechWarrior, but I'm sure you'll make it, with long study hours and lots of hard work! Let's review what we've learned so far!

• You are not qualified to hold forth on the metagame - the practice of grouping up is common because it is necessitated by the dynamics of force-on-force actions. You seem ignorant of the mechanical reasons for the current PuG tactical methodology, and have made up your own fairy tale explanation out of whole cloth.
  
• There is no conspiracy on the part of mean Assault and Heavy pilots to browbeat you into playing to their strengths. The reason that nearly every pilot in the game screams at you when you play CapWarrior is that it's not any fun to play like that, not because they're mean nerd-jocks trying to make your brave, smart tactics "socially unacceptable."
  
• On that note, using CapWarrior tactics on the large maps is just short of bug abuse, and you should feel bad for doing it. There is no effective way for a PuG team to ensure that they have all of the approaches covered without dispersing their combat power to an untenable degree. Particularly on Tourmaline, but to some degree on both maps, playing CapWarrior to passive-aggressively punish people because you don't know how to pilot your light simply makes use of a cap timer that is currently too short for the map size.

I hope that this educational brochure has been helpful to you, and that we'll see you again once you've attained a basic level of competence! See you on the battlefield!

While this was entertaining to read, you allocated far too many of your IQ points into "witty response", and far too little into "logical thought".

[Livewyr]

Void Angel, on 13 May 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

You also spelled "spelled" wrong, but why quibble when you can make snidely hypocritical comments about "these forums," and engage in straw man sophistry? My reasoning in this and other threads stands on its own merit. Perhaps, instead of smugly dishonest trolling, you might try using some kind of reasoning yourself?

Straw man? That would imply he misrepresented your argument. He didn't.

Your long winded pompous argument can be boiled down to this:
Sticking together as a group and focusing fire is effective.
Base capping because you can out maneuver your [grouped, with overwhelming firepower] opponent, is bad.


Why is outmaneuvering bad? Because, apparently using your superior speed to avoid confrontation with an opponent with far superior firepower is "bad." (So says the person with overwhelming firepower..who is trying to negate his only weakness.)

Edited by Livewyr, 13 May 2013 - 03:25 AM.

[KayTannee]

LordDante, on 12 May 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:

capping is a good way to break up the enemy force. that tactic works in almost every PUG game i Play.

sitting in a Spider the first Thing i do is to locate the enemy Forces and tell my Team where they are / going. THEN ill rush there base. what happens next is that with 80% certainty two or three guys leave the front to stop me from capping. So 1 ( one ) Spider keeps 3 ( three ) guys busy = WIN WIN WIN .
when they Show up at their base ill retreat and while they are chasing me, my Team eats up their mainforce, and when they are finished doing that ill serve them the rest.
do i get kills ? sometimes
does that Sound like spoiling the fun for others ? to some People it might, i think I ROCK!
do i get much cb/xp ? no
do i have fun ? HELL YEAH
do i win by cap ? to **** People off ? NO ! when my Team gets eaten alive or im the last guy Standing, YES!

This, is why capping is in. Best way to split up a blob.


Oh and on the topic of mediums, they're great. After finished splitting the team up with a quick cap, and retreat. Can run off and find some assault mechs who are engaged to rip the rear armour out of. They contain enough firepower and manoeuvrability to rip the rear off an assault, very quickly. Just need to be abit sneaky with it.

[Joseph Mallan]

Shinikaru, on 12 May 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

My problem with your argument, and your entire mentality, is this: "You seem to personally believe the point of Mechwarrior matches are to 'WIN' the match.

Following from this you believe that 'WINNING' means that end screen after a battle where in you and everyone on your team are declared the 'VICTOR'.

Well lets examine this for a hot-second....what do you get on a fast cap win? 25,000 C-bills, and a chincy couple hundred xp.

What do get for a loss where you dish out some damage, maybe blow off a component or two, get some spotting assists, kill assists, or a personal kill?

Even if you lose that battle you still get.....25,000k c-bills, and at least the same chincy xp for fighting scores as a fast cap.

But you also probably get an additional 50-125k and an additional 150-300 xp.

Your major problem quite seriously, is that you are in denial about the fact that the games built in reward system rewards even longer losses WAY BETTER than fast minimal fighting "WINS".

I ask you WHY EVEN PLAY MWO if not to battle royale it out in a giant robot? Your ******* and moaning about the fact that most players in this game came to 1. Fight 2. Maximize a match for rewards, and when you do your personal best to avoid or minimalise those two things for them, and they call you out on it, they are the bad guy...

Your mentality is the minority i'm fairly sure.

Now if you want to tag-cap to draw an enemy or two back from their main force, PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

What usually happens thou, is you just sit and cap out the match with maybe 3 people dead out of 16, and literally, EVERYONE LOSES.

See there are more reasons to play the game that just to play TDM.

BattleTech Combat axium.
To ensure victory, you need 3x the enemy known forces. If you win and don't have enough forces left to defend a possible counter strike, you haven't won.

Don't get me wrong there is some quick gratification to be go from kicking the other teams tin plated butt. But in the grand scheme of things you have proven to be one dimensional and that will lead to your getting capped, LRMed, Sniped, PPCed to death.

The objective of the game is to beat the enemy. Not to fight them, but to beat them. Taking the objective (Capping) wins. If it ****** off the enemy then you also win a psychological victory more sweet than any point total.

Quote

I mean to confound these bungers.

I like this quote. It fits the discussion well. I mean to o something you don't expect. It will increase the chance of me winning. You are not supposed to like what I do to beat you, you ARE supposed o like i when I do what you want so you can win.

So if you are complaining, and I am not cheating, I am playing the game the right way.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 13 May 2013 - 03:42 AM.

[Livewyr]

KayTannee, on 13 May 2013 - 03:32 AM, said:

This, is why capping is in. Best way to split up a blob.


Oh and on the topic of mediums, they're great. After finished splitting the team up with a quick cap, and retreat. Can run off and find some assault mechs who are engaged to rip the rear armour out of. They contain enough firepower and manoeuvrability to rip the rear off an assault, very quickly. Just need to be abit sneaky with it.

At least I'm not the only one who is crazy...

[Livewyr]

Keifomofutu, on 12 May 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

In any case I'm not sure what the OP is trying to accomplish. No matter how terrible there is no point blaming players for an ingame imbalance. Players plural are a leaderless mob.

Remember how the title of the OP said "Player created imbalance?"

Here's the imbalance stated in the simplest terms:


This is what it should be:
Focus Fire Group Tactics = Maneuverability Objective Tactics

(Equal sign representing validity, for clarification)



this is what it is currently in player attitude:
Focus Fire Group Tactics > Maneuverability Objective Tactics

(Not because FFGT is any better, but MOT is cowardly/bug abuse/trolling according to FFGT)

does that clarify it for you?

[Zerberus]

Caustic Canid, on 12 May 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Part of the reason people call it "grief capping" is because the rewards are so small, for everyone involved. Right now, with the current "bonus" that you get for capping, most people just see it as ruining their fun.

PGI should really give more incentives to take part in the objectives, as opposed to only rewarding people who brawl. Increase the win xp/cbills for cappers, and give bonuses to people who defend their base and you'll see a lot more people trying to find ways around the big boys to cap and Mediums taking their place as fast and agile defenders against lights.

The meta would be unbalanced for a short while because you would see more lights show up first, as capping would now offer greater rewards, but soon the medium population would increase as well to combat them.

People would actually have to decide how many to leave on their base, and how many to take with and push.

I think one thing many forget /overlook is that right now we are still basically "playtesting and debugging the engine".

When CW comes, and (if?) control of territory is "properly" rewarded, the single match rewards will be of much less importance.

When CW comes, those that do not shift their focus away from "Robots smash robots in middle of map" to WINNING at all costs (including "sacrificing" your own XP and /or C-bills to get that win as is fitting for a TEAM game) will regularly and consistently find themselves on the losing side of the conflicts that could have gotten them access to that new epic PPC or lowered teh mech price 10% allowing them to buy that third Atlas Chassis.

And they will have nobody to blame but themselves, which will probably not stop the forums from being flooded w/ QQ.

However, right now match rewards are all we really have, and most of us I`ll assume want to simply either

A. Grind Cbills /XP /Level mechs
B. Just have fun and shoot other robots.
C. Just have fun which to them is winning at all costs.

Since, with all due respect, the enemy is never "supposed" to have fun , in any form of conflict (obviously this is a game, so there is a large degree of liniency in this matter), all three of these are very valid reasons to play, and all of them warrant /encourage different tactics, often dependent on the FOTM of the current overall "metagame".

A and B more or less favor the blob mentality, "shoot as much as possible with as little movement as possible", while C favors fast guerrilla tactics. Just like in real warfare, except that in real warfare nobody is there to level and most people don`t like to get shot AT while shooting if they can avoid it, not to mention the unnecessary waste of soldiers and materiel the old "Line em up and shoot um down" formations were. Hence why most modern military tactics are based acound small, mobile strikeforces that lend themselves to C.

C is obviously a detriment to the effectiveness of both A and B when applied "properly", but is still an absolutely valid form of gameplay no matter how much of your fun it "sucks out", and 10 threads a week about how lights suck for doing exactly what they were designed to do (which is control the dynamic flow of the engagement, as scouts, cappers, fast strikers, interference runners,... ) will never get that changed.

This has been the case more or less since day 1, and will continue to be the case for as long as humans exist as players.

Any discussion about which of these 3 is "most" fun or "most" lame is an almost purely objective one, as the only truly subjective points are "You can win by cap" and "You can win by kill". The losing team will ALWAYS be demotivated, and as a result will complain as loudly (and often by correlation ad childishly) as possible in today`s day and age of "anonymity" in the internet. Be it the wolfpack that got sniped, the sniper that got his cockpit punched in by the brawler, or the brawler that got shredded or capped by the wolfpack.

I for my part am loathe to further discuss the specifics of these mechanics with people who often simply do not wish to (or cannot) accept that their view is not the one universally true one, and now simply make my point clear by often running in a 4 man wolfpack for entire evenings making wine from their tears for hours on end. And not necessarily by capping, either.

Edited by Zerberus, 13 May 2013 - 03:55 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Livewyr, on 13 May 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

Remember how the title of the OP said "Player created imbalance?"

Here's the imbalance stated in the simplest terms:


This is what it should be:
Focus Fire Group Tactics = Maneuverability Objective Tactics

(Equal sign representing validity, for clarification)



this is what it is currently in player attitude:
Focus Fire Group Tactics > Maneuverability Objective Tactics

(Not because FFGT is any better, but MOT is cowardly/bug abuse/trolling according to FFGT)

does that clarify it for you?

However FFGT should beat MOT. If I am reading this right. If 5 players are shooting at a mobile opponent, the masses fire should make short work of the target.

Now a FFMOT should beat either of the two original examples.

[Zerberus]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 May 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

However FFGT should beat MOT. If I am reading this right. If 5 players are shooting at a mobile opponent, the masses fire should make short work of the target.

Doesn`t really play out that way in RL, though, a more mobile force is almost always at a significant advantage. A small strikeforce can disappear into the hills or a jungle, whereas the large, armed convoy with 2 platoons people firing blindly into the brush still has to stay on or near the road. Knowing where your enemy is is half the battle

Quote

Now a FFMOT should beat either of the two original examples.

Truth. This is the basic principle behind the light Wolfpack.

Edited by Zerberus, 13 May 2013 - 04:15 AM.

[Livewyr]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 May 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

However FFGT should beat MOT. If I am reading this right. If 5 players are shooting at a mobile opponent, the masses fire should make short work of the target.

Now a FFMOT should beat either of the two original examples.

I think you misunderstand, Mallan- MOT for this purpose is a maneuver unit not engaging the enemy directly, rather using the objectives to force enemy movements. (This should include making your self invulnerable to fire by putting terrain and distance between yourself and the FFGT)

[Joseph Mallan]

You're right. I mistook MOT for fast striking Cavalry style.

[Megalosauroid]

If you enjoy capping so much and dont care about cbills/xp OP why dont you just go and stand on the cap points in training grounds. Its exactly the same gameplay from your point of view.

[Livewyr]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 May 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

You're right. I mistook MOT for fast striking Cavalry style.

Oh Cavalry usage can be part of it- that's how I primarily play, but it's not limited to that (and shouldn't be).

Megalosauroid, on 13 May 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

If you enjoy capping so much and dont care about cbills/xp OP why dont you just go and stand on the cap points in training grounds. Its exactly the same gameplay from your point of view.

Thank you for your most influential and constructive addition to this discussion. The door is up at the top right of your screen.

[Megalosauroid]

Livewyr, on 13 May 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

Thank you for your most influential and constructive addition to this discussion. The door is up at the top right of your screen.

Its a legitamate question though, if standing in a little red square is how you get your rocks off there is a much eaiser way of doing it. There isnt even that pesky time limit on how long you can stand there.


Better yet, you could draw a red square around your computer desk. That way you could be 'maneuvering' and 'strategizing' while actually playing the fun part of the game.

Edited by Megalosauroid, 13 May 2013 - 04:48 AM.