70 replies to this topic

[Odins Fist]

GODzillaGSPB, on 15 August 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

I've lately noticed, especially now that 12 vs 12 is in and people are afraid of getting focused by a dozen mechs, that assaults more and more take the role of supporters, staying behind....

In several games, where we actually and clearly gained the upper hand those same assaults still hid in their cover

I usually play medium and it's really frustrating

Think about this, dear support assaults: When weight limits are in the game, you'll be a much smaller group. Yes, you will survive back in your trenchses, but once the frontline mediums and heavies are dealt with, you'll die surrounded and alone.

Can you blame a slow moving assault for "NOT" wanting to walk into a focus fire from multiple enemies..?? What about you?
I had to have a good chuckle about this... Sorry Chief, but people are playing smarter, and most assaults aren't as fast as your mediums, so your perception that they are hiding when they can't keep speed with you, or climb the same terrain as you can makes one heck of a good laugh...

Do yourself a favor and communicate with your team before the match gets really going hard, find out which Mechs are missile boats, which assaults are loaded out for long range weapons, and which are willing to be the brawling tanks that you require all asaults to be..

Show me where it is written that all asaults must tank for you..?? How about those fast Victors..?? They are escort destroyers, not battleships.

I understand that those big nasty Atlases have a bunch of Armor, I understand you want them to tank for you, but understand this, the next time you see an Atlas get shot to pieces moving into an area to engage, you better not call him a noob for getting smoked while he's trying to move from cover to cover at 48 to 60 KPH while you're bobbing and weaving at 80 to 98 kph.

A lot of the time mediums and lights crying out for help is because they got themselves into a bad situation, then flame the slow movers for not being there.

I have a situation for you, how about the times when 3 assaults move in on an enemy team when they have the chance, only to find out that the 3 mediums with them all of a sudden run away in fear instead of helping a push on the enemy.?? How about that little nugget..?? I have seen that a lot more than I have seen assaults "hiding" as you put it.
There are too many variables in a match that can affect the flow of the fight, and 2 dimensional thinking doesn't do anything to help that fact.
Perhaps better situational awareness is on order, and not blanket statements..??
http://odinswolves.enjin.com/

Edited by Odins Fist, 17 August 2013 - 01:31 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 August 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

tis the point most miss on here.

What works for 12 man, is not always ideal for 4 man, and what works in pairs or lances, doesn't always work well for true Pugging. The smaller your base unit, the more self-reliant the build needs to be because the less help you can count on to watch your back and cover our deficiencies.

Shame the serial 12 man "Pros" are the ones who least comprehend this concept while they troll the forums telling everyone else how "bad" they are. And not able to realize that winning and dominating in 12 man vs in PuG are two TOTALLY separate scenarios, as one is highly controlled, whilst the other is total chaos. The overall skill level may arguably be higher in 12 man (though often I find it's just who metarapes hardest, and then when the Meta changes, they have to scramble to find the next set of exploits) but it's also a much less diverse set of scenarios one faces, and therefore easier to account for and adapt. PuG matches, you may be king of the hill one match and have to save your teams bacon, and the next get totally steamrolled.

It's the difference between being a soldier, and being a warrior. 100 Romans would kill 100 Teutonic or Celtic Barbarians, every time. In a duel, 1v1 the lone Celt would almost always beat the Centurion. The Warrior dies to group tactics, but is usually far superior when he needs to rely on himself.

Again I find myself agreeing with you.

Your analogy is rather good. Roman's were soldiers and won battles by acting in coordination with their fellow soldiers. You had to rely on the shield of the main on your right to protect your sword side and the man on your left had to rely on you. Taken together you were virtually unstopable. However if you were cut from formation a single Celtic warrior would eat you alive due to his individual skill at arms.

Anyway, I just recently started teaming up and was until a few weeks ago a dedicated Pugger. What I found is that the game, skills and builds for each type of game (Pugging vs Teaming) are completely different from each other.

Puggers rely on individual skill. Individually they have to be very skilled to be succesful because their survival is completely, 100% dependant on their personal skills and abilities combined with mech builds focusing on self-reliance.

Team players learn to survive and excell as a team using mech builds that compliment one another.

Both require skill, but very different types of skill and will excell in very different types of situations. In alot of cases a good team player will stuggle in a PUG where as a good pugger will struggle in a group.

I have found for myself, that I am usually much more personally effective playing a PUG solo. My kills are always higher, my damage is always higher and in general I get higher rewards than when I team up. However in teamplay I have more victories and a higher survival rate.

The reason for this is that in a solo PUG I have complete freedom. I can read the battlefield and move where I think the best angles or attack and defense are. I can also run off to pounce on a vulnerable enemy or retreat to the entire other side of the battlefield if I think that is the best thing to do. This is why in general I have better individual performance.

In a Team, you are constrained to what the team is doing. You can't solo off or move where you want to because you have to be able to provide mutual support. Also you have to follow a single leader to be successful which means unless your the leader you have to move and react to what they are doing and if you are the leader, you have to pay attention and become responsible for what you team is doing and is capable of doing. This makes me feel a bit constrained and trapped at times.

In any case, you have to consider this when your talking about builds and the way people play a match and make sure you understand the context of the situation. Assaults can be hard to play in a PUG due to so many factors and mostly because of the lack of support they get. I can't count the times I have be left to fend for myself and by the time I reached Brawl range, either my team had already won or lost the match. At least by putting LRMs and other long range weapons on my Atlas, not only can I support the backfield but also start engaging the enemy while I try to catch up to the rest of the team.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 17 August 2013 - 01:41 PM.

[East Indy]

This happens often enough that I wonder if it's just the propensity of newer, less confident players to run assaults.

[Oppresor]

I run both my Atlai as primary Sniper Configs, they are not lone wolves, from the onset of a mission I let everyone (In my lance) know that I am a Sniper, I then do my absolute best to find somewhere in range with a clear shot to support my lance.

I don't run ECM because I feel this is a cowardly device, I do use AMS which will give away my position, but that will also give me some protection from enemy CB (LRM Boat) Fire.

Ultimately, when the chips are down, I will engage at point blank range with the full intension of doing as much damage as possible to as many enemy Mechs as possible in the full knowledge that I am going to be taken out. However, I will only do this when I feel that my primary role has been compromised (ERPPC fails (Yes I am not an LRM Boat)) or things are going very badly for my Lance.

[Bishop Steiner]

East Indy, on 17 August 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

This happens often enough that I wonder if it's just the propensity of newer, less confident players to run assaults.

[Sir Wulfrick]

cdlord, on 15 August 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

I have lost count of how many times I have spearheaded an attack in my Atlas or Victor or other assault only to die alone. The longer we stay alive, the more damage we can do on the enemy. You should be sure that the assault pilot is in on the plan to push and then you better be sure not to abandon it on the front. Assaults cannot turn and fall back on a dime. When we commit to a maneuver, it's usually for good.

Precisely this. I've played many a match where every other player on the team (I'm often the only Atlas) ***** off in to the distance leaving me to the tender mercy of every light pilot on the enemy team. How frustrating do you imaging this sort of thing to be? As Cdlord commented, in an assault mech once you've committed to the battle there's often no going back. Disengagement is usually impossible.

I'm an Atlas pilot. Only ever an Atlas. I'm more than happy to spearhead an assault, even charge in to certain death if it means making enought of a diference to breaking through the enemy lines and help to produce a win for my team, but on behalf of all assault pilots I'll say this:

Please support us, we're happy to do our very best for the team but if you don't support us it's very hard for us to support you.

[Johnny Reb]

I run my Atlas as a Lrm support sniper. I stay just behind the heavy group or even with the group depending on the situation. If my lance leader or commander order me in a brawl I will brawl. However, I am better at range till needed to brawl. Also, here is my current Alas loadout:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...075232a85997ae5

Call me a coward if you want, makes no difference to me. I find this an effective and enjoyable build to run. Also, I don't tell you how to build or run your mechs so don't tell me how to run mine, unless you are my commander.

Edited by Johnny Reb, 17 August 2013 - 06:47 PM.

[Prezimonto]

Fyrerock, on 17 August 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Sure that works in a pregroup of people working together, because you are the tank and your teammates are the dps, but things like that do not work in most pugs, in fact that build can hurt many pugs because you really lack the dps to defend yourself and if the group either does not follow or they are all bad shots the fight is over very fast with a wipe.

Many times I have seen an atlas run over a hill and engage 4 other mechs and be killed in less then 15 seconds, now how does that help a group, it is not like that atlas set up to brawl had the dps to really hurt the other team in 15 seconds.

I agree completely that true pugging will be different that a pair or lance. However, a good pilot in a pug can still make a build like that work more often than not. Particularly with even a tiny amount of text chat to ask for a little cover/help. That's what's most often missing in a pug setting, any kind of communication. When it does happen that team often excels.

[Rehl]

I'm gonna go with Roror on this one. I'm normally in a meduim/light mech, but those Atlases are difficult targets to avoid shooting at. When I *am* in an Assault mech - especially an Atlas, I get zero support and if I do commit I get left behind when a juicy looking jenner runs through the group to pull the rest of the group away or anything else happens. If you want more help from the Assault mechs, stick with them so they can help instead of getting smoked while they get left behind alone.

[pulupulu]

Bishop Steiner said:

It's the difference between being a soldier, and being a warrior. 100 Romans would kill 100 Teutonic or Celtic Barbarians, every time. In a duel, 1v1 the lone Celt would almost always beat the Centurion. The Warrior dies to group tactics, but is usually far superior when he needs to rely on himself.

Viktor Drake, on 17 August 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

Your analogy is rather good. Roman's were soldiers and won battles by acting in coordination with their fellow soldiers. You had to rely on the shield of the main on your right to protect your sword side and the man on your left had to rely on you. Taken together you were virtually unstopable. However if you were cut from formation a single Celtic warrior would eat you alive due to his individual skill at arms.

I like the analogy as well.

However, a celtic warrior leader and roman commander have to face many of the same type of problems as some one in command. Only that roman commander are far better at leading an unit; while the celtic warrior leader probably can not steam roll the roman commander at 1vs1.

Quote

Both require skill, but very different types of skill and will excell in very different types of situations. In alot of cases a good team player will stuggle in a PUG where as a good pugger will struggle in a group.

I don't know if that is entirely true. It feel more like bad player is bad, no matter team or PUG style (since we are talking about majority). However, playing in a team certainly mask defficiency better than PUG. I find it all too common for team player to blame others for not being able to back them up. Which means that they got their *** saved many times by a buddy of his, so often that he could not learn how to deal with the frustration.

On the other hand, PUG can easily mask poor communication skill.

Quote

I can read the battlefield and move where I think the best angles or attack and defense are. I can also run off to pounce on a vulnerable enemy or retreat to the entire other side of the battlefield if I think that is the best thing to do. This is why in general I have better individual performance.

Your next level is to have even more effective communication skill and lead a team. You can already read the battle, the only way you feel trapped is because either the leader doesn't read battle as good or you are not communicating what you see.

In effect, I think the PUG and team split can easily come down to "social type" who is good with communication or "loner type" that rely on doing most things on his own... Then there are those that is good with both.

Off topic: It must have been terrifying when a roman commander has an army of celtic warriors as his regular troop. I guess that's what the mongol and the british empire + gurkhas were like.

Edited by pulupulu, 18 August 2013 - 03:28 AM.

[Hauser]

Lucian Nostra, on 15 August 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:

secondly those support assaults minimize the most frustrating part of mwo, your reliance on your team.

Roror, on 16 August 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

3- Zero support. Rarely if ever do I get support from other team members. Usually on weekends I get support, that's when I do the best. During the week and especially at night it's pretty much every man for himself.

Arrachtas, on 17 August 2013 - 02:13 AM, said:

Assault 'mechs cowering in the back in PuG matches is nothing new; fundamentally, nobody really wants to die, and in a PuG match, where you can't rely on anybody (as many players are flat-out terrible at worst, or uncoordinated at best) what else is one to do?

I think we've found the common denominator. In your average pug game you can not rely on your team mates to back you up.

Since it gets better when playing in the weekend I think we can trace this back to a lack of players that forces the match maker to place green and veteran players in the same match.