54 replies to this topic

[Mindwipe]

I only recall seeing one tie, even time running out is pretty rare. The tie I saw was this weekend actually, Tourmaline, hard fought battle where when the brawl settled, they had an Atlas, Battlemaster, and Cataphract versus a sniping Stalker high up on the cliffs. The Stalker finished the Atlas off and turned to the flanking Cat and BM, the Cat was poptarting and took the Stalker to yellow internal while taking lots of ER Large Laser fire.

Silencer moved his Stalker around and caught the badly damaged Battlemaster making a break for our base and finished him then moved to keep his guns on the Cat we could see on his siesmic. They had both gotten within spitting distance without being able to see each other and just before they could re-engage on what would probably be a final exchange the timer ran out.

I was a bit disappointed in that result but kudo's to Silencer for keeping his cool and salvaging a tie out of what I thought was going to be a loss.

[Satan n stuff]

Mindwipe, on 04 November 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

I only recall seeing one tie, even time running out is pretty rare. The tie I saw was this weekend actually, Tourmaline, hard fought battle where when the brawl settled, they had an Atlas, Battlemaster, and Cataphract versus a sniping Stalker high up on the cliffs. The Stalker finished the Atlas off and turned to the flanking Cat and BM, the Cat was poptarting and took the Stalker to yellow internal while taking lots of ER Large Laser fire.

Silencer moved his Stalker around and caught the badly damaged Battlemaster making a break for our base and finished him then moved to keep his guns on the Cat we could see on his siesmic. They had both gotten within spitting distance without being able to see each other and just before they could re-engage on what would probably be a final exchange the timer ran out.

I was a bit disappointed in that result but kudo's to Silencer for keeping his cool and salvaging a tie out of what I thought was going to be a loss.

Sadly, the loss would have paid better.

[Arcturious]

Maybe I've been unlucky (or lucky depending on point of view), but I've been in at least 5-6 tie situations.

The major issue with the rewards is that each of these games is usually extremely hard fought on both sides. Both teams deserve more than a loss due to the effort and time expended.

These are usually edge of the seat type games, with two brutally damaged mechs going at it or circling around looking for openings.

Either timer goes, or they kill each other at same time. I've even had a resource tie where 750 was hit at same time (I'm pretty sure).

This morning, I chose to suicide and lose the match rather than force a tie as I know the rewards would have been better. I was the last alive in a locust vs an almost fresh Jagermech. I could have just run away and drawn the fight out for 3 more minutes but I knew it was ultimately pointless as it would result in less rewards. So I ran out in the open and died.

Both teams played great matches. I shouldn't have to decide to die - getting a tie should have made both teams meet half way for rewards.

It happens to me often enough I've noticed it. So either I'm lucky in getting some really exciting games, or I'm unlucky in getting some really bad rewards

[Steel Claws]

Kunae, on 31 October 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Ties should never really happen, and to prevent them, I think there should be a significant C-bill and XP penalty for all the players left alive, when it happens.

I really disagree - the points should be something between a win and a loss. I've seen several ties and almost none were because someone ran off and hid.

For instance, the last one I was in there was myself in raven and another guy in a Shadowhawk against four on the other team (2 were Highlanders that were fairly healthy, a Battlemaster, and another mech). It had been a protracted game and the action had see sawed back and forth for most of the drop. With about four minutes left to go I had just killed a heavy or assault that I'd been working on but the other team had the BM and other mech capping our base so I ran back and killed both of them - they were fairly beat up.

While I was doing this our Shadhawk had started capping their base and ended up fighting both Highlanders. He died before I could get back to help him so I intercepted the Highlanders coming back out of their spawn. I managed to kill one just before time ran out but didn't get a chance to kill the last one. I ended up with 900+ damage and 4 or 5 kills and you want to penalize that kind of performance?

Almost every tie I've seen has been a well fought battle that could have gone either way but time just ran out before the final blows could be landed. The fact that it has usually come down to just a couple of mechs and that they have been in the thick of it most times - this kind of drop effort should be rewarded not penalized.

[Epathian]

Macbrea, on 01 November 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

I have ended a fight with zero ammo and my energy arm blown off on my Commando. I have seen a tie with both remaining mechs depleted on all ammo. What are they suppose to do at that point. Run into each other until it registered enough armor damage to kill one of them?

This actually happened to me earlier, I had no weapons left and only mech on the Enemy team was a spider with one working leg, and I rammed him with my thunder bolt until his other leg was destroyed and I got the kill.

I felt very pro and noobish at the same time.

[Kunae]

Steel Claws, on 06 November 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

I really disagree - the points should be something between a win and a loss. I've seen several ties and almost none were because someone ran off and hid.

For instance, the last one I was in there was myself in raven and another guy in a Shadowhawk against four on the other team (2 were Highlanders that were fairly healthy, a Battlemaster, and another mech). It had been a protracted game and the action had see sawed back and forth for most of the drop. With about four minutes left to go I had just killed a heavy or assault that I'd been working on but the other team had the BM and other mech capping our base so I ran back and killed both of them - they were fairly beat up.

While I was doing this our Shadhawk had started capping their base and ended up fighting both Highlanders. He died before I could get back to help him so I intercepted the Highlanders coming back out of their spawn. I managed to kill one just before time ran out but didn't get a chance to kill the last one. I ended up with 900+ damage and 4 or 5 kills and you want to penalize that kind of performance?

Almost every tie I've seen has been a well fought battle that could have gone either way but time just ran out before the final blows could be landed. The fact that it has usually come down to just a couple of mechs and that they have been in the thick of it most times - this kind of drop effort should be rewarded not penalized.

The maps we have aren't large enough for a 15 minute battle to be possible. The only way this happens is if the majority of players decide to play "hidey-peeky" for 10 minutes before actually engaging.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kunae, on 08 November 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

The maps we have aren't large enough for a 15 minute battle to be possible. The only way this happens is if the majority of players decide to play "hidey-peeky" for 10 minutes before actually engaging.

You mean like actual warfare? Wow! So Us soldiers hiding behind cover and trying to pop out and shoot the enemy if he is out of cover has been the wrong way to try to kill each other all these years? The Romans, Greeks, every other OUT DATED way of fighting was the right way to do it all along? Back in the day statistically my life expectancy in a firefight was something like 2.8 seconds. That may have changed in the last 2.5 decades I don't know. People want to play at war, but don't expect to feel the results of being on the wrong end of a gun.

[Zerberus]

AC, on 01 November 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

The tie rules are pretty dumb right now. It should be the team with the most tonnage standing on the field wins. This would force fights rather than having the lone spider run away and hide. (yes, has happened to me on numerous matches)...also (you find a shut down spider on Alpine... Just another reason why BAP should allow a limited range of non-LOS radar, like it is suppose to)

The logic behind this being the assumption that the atlas that got blown down to 10% in seconds for being stupid and couldn´t get to base to cap is a better player or team contribution than the spider that capped the base, splitting teh enemy team, allowing for the team to concentrate fire, then came back and played striker for 5 minutes until he lost his weapons and leg?

Worst idea ever, can only come from an assault pilot.

[Joseph Mallan]

Zerberus, on 08 November 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

The logic behind this being the assumption that the atlas that got blown down to 10% in seconds for being stupid and couldn´t get to base to cap is a better player or team contribution than the spider that capped the base, splitting teh enemy team, allowing for the team to concentrate fire, then came back and played striker for 5 minutes until he lost his weapons and leg?

Worst idea ever, can only come from an assault pilot.

As a Assault Pilot I resent this, cause I support your logic.

[Steel Claws]

Kunae, on 08 November 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

The maps we have aren't large enough for a 15 minute battle to be possible. The only way this happens is if the majority of players decide to play "hidey-peeky" for 10 minutes before actually engaging.

So perhaps we should all line up like they did in the 1700s and march across the field in formation to be shot to ribbons. Pretty crappy attitude from someone who wasn't there. Tourmaline is a fairly big map and there is plenty of room for manuvering. Warfare should never be "Oh lets rush in and crush them." Are you one of those guys that keeps suggesting stupid tactics like "Lets all tunnel rush," or "Lets go to E4 on Tourmaline" or "Lets all rush 2 line" on Caustic - you know stuff that almost never works on any team worth a damn? From the way your talking you sure seem to lack any real imagination.

Edited by Steel Claws, 08 November 2013 - 07:48 AM.

[Kunae]

Steel Claws, on 08 November 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

So perhaps we should all line up like they did in the 1700s and march across the field in formation to be shot to ribbons. Pretty crappy attitude from someone who wasn't there. Tourmaline is a fairly big map and there is plenty of room for manuvering. Warfare should never be "Oh lets rush in and crush them." Are you one of those guys that keeps suggesting stupid tactics like "Lets all tunnel rush," or "Lets go to E4 on Tourmaline" or "Lets all rush 2 line" on Caustic - you know stuff that almost never works on any team worth a damn? From the way your talking you sure seem to lack any real imagination.

You really must learn to not make assumptions about things you have no information on.

It doesn't matter what map it is. If you stop immediately when you see the enemy and play hidey-seeky with them for 10 mins, you're just bad. That's lack of imagination, right there, and it's extremely common. If people are actually using any thought, they're using the predilection of the masses, to play hidey-seeky, to flank and crush them when they're distracted with it.

With the current game modes and map sizes, no match should last longer than 12-13 minutes.

[Roadbeer]

Funny thing about this thread, is that BOTH sides of the argument are right.

Should ties happen? Not really, you are given plenty of time to achieve the goals set out for a win/loose situation.
Can ties happen? Yup, despite all the possible scenarios of what *SHOULD* have happened, at the end of the match, something went wrong with the plans/lack of plans, tactics, loadouts, or assumption of sufficient ammo.

Regardless...

Everyone looses in a tie, make sure it DOESN'T happen, because if it does, everyone gets screwed.

Edited by Roadbeer, 08 November 2013 - 09:19 AM.

[Steel Claws]

Kunae, on 08 November 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

You really must learn to not make assumptions about things you have no information on.

It doesn't matter what map it is. If you stop immediately when you see the enemy and play hidey-seeky with them for 10 mins, you're just bad. That's lack of imagination, right there, and it's extremely common. If people are actually using any thought, they're using the predilection of the masses, to play hidey-seeky, to flank and crush them when they're distracted with it.

With the current game modes and map sizes, no match should last longer than 12-13 minutes.

Wait.... what....... First you say "If you stop immediately when you see the enemy and play hidey-seeky with them for 10 mins, you're just bad. That's lack of imagination". Then you say "If people are actually using any thought, they're using the predilection of the masses, to play hidey-seeky, to flank and crush them when they're distracted with it." You seem conflicted or confused. You say it's bad to take time and yet you say people should flank and do all the things that I do each time I play - stuff that takes time, and you say I don't understand?

[Bagheera]

He means that if anyone thinks about it for a moment, they will predict where the opponent will setup to play hidey-peeky and subsequently crush them with a flanking maneuver. To be fair, his comma placement was a bit off for that meaning to come through.

[Roadbeer]

Bagheera, on 09 November 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

To be fair, his comma placement was a bit off for that meaning to come through.

"Let's eat grandma"
"Let's eat, Grandma"

Punctuation saves lives.