67 replies to this topic

[Hoaggie]

Above is a brief tutorial on how to maintain a proper fire and maneuver posture in a difficult no-win situation. This is an advanced tutorial, and it is not something that can be done without fluid communication.

*edited because nobody can get over the title

Edited by Hoaggie, 15 January 2014 - 12:27 AM.

[Hauser]

Awesome tutorial. Posted you to Reddit.

Edited by Hauser, 04 January 2014 - 02:36 AM.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Nice teamwork. I don't often see a tunnel rush succeed like that these days.

[John Branon]

I see good coordination within your lance, but I don't see a No-Win Situation. If you think otherwise, you are probably focusing too much on your lance and not enough on your team.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

It does depend. I wouldn't call that No-Win, either, but usually if you get pincered like that in the tunnel your options become very limited.

No-Win for me is walking round a corner in my beat-up 55% CN9-AL to get flanking shots on the line for my lancemates and seeing 3 Highlanders and 2 Cataphracts (or similar other massive mismatch). My response is usually 'In for a penny!' and go berserk to try and tie them up long enough for my lance to either pile in or escape, depending on relative condition. Often I die that way, but occasionally I've won initiative back from them and turned it round.

[INKBALL]

Great tutorial, great squad. But, to me, it wasnt a no-win situation, you used coordination, damage split to keep high dps. GF good tutorial (on what should be ).

[Hoaggie]

John Branon, on 04 January 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

I see good coordination within your lance, but I don't see a No-Win Situation. If you think otherwise, you are probably focusing too much on your lance and not enough on your team.

It was a no-win situation for our lance. 3/4 of our lance died. This video is clearly not about the broader overall tactical picture.

[John Branon]

Hoaggie, on 04 January 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

It was a no-win situation for our lance. 3/4 of our lance died. This video is clearly not about the broader overall tactical picture.

My point is you don't win or lose as a lance. You win or lose as a team. As the titel says no-win situation, I was expecting the overall tactical picture.

[Xavier Wulf]

John Branon, on 04 January 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

My point is you don't win or lose as a lance. You win or lose as a team. As the titel says no-win situation, I was expecting the overall tactical picture.

Most of the time, if a single lance is in this type of situation, they often fail to deal equal damage to the enemy team and will result in a massive disadvantage for the rest of the team.
So, I think that every engagement is important, and if one lance loses against another force, that will directly influence the flow of the rest of the battle. Had our lance not worked together as it did, I would bet that we would have lost.

I do not put much faith in pubbies, because many are not communicating, and often are just not that good. How many times in a game does one lance die without dishing out damage to the enemies? Way too often, and this results in the enemy team rolling through the team with greater numbers.

So yes, you do infact win or lose as a lance.

Edited by Xavier Wulf, 04 January 2014 - 07:17 PM.

[oldradagast]

Xavier Wulf, on 04 January 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

Most of the time, if a single lance is in this type of situation, they often fail to deal equal damage to the enemy team and will result in a massive disadvantage for the rest of the team.
So, I think that every engagement is important, and if one lance loses against another force, that will directly influence the flow of the rest of the battle. Had our lance not worked together as it did, I would bet that we would have lost.

I do not put much faith in pubbies, because many are not communicating, and often are just not that good. How many times in a game does one lance die without dishing out damage to the enemies? Way too often, and this results in the enemy team rolling through the team with greater numbers.

So yes, you do infact win or lose as a lance.

Agreed.

Nearly every ghastly loss I've seen has 1 lance that may as well not exist when one looks at the final scoreboard. You usually end up with 3 out of 4 not even hitting 100 damage, and then 1 guy who held on a bit longer for more hits... which is balanced out by another guy in some other lance who managed to deal 50 damage all match. So, yep - down a lance without proper damage compensation usually equals a bad loss.

Edited by oldradagast, 06 January 2014 - 11:37 AM.

[NRP]

Another cool vid.

Just goes to show how advantageous voice comms and good teammates can be. And how screwed the solo PUGer is when he/she has to face such opponents.

[Victor Morson]

The correct solution to the no-win scenario:

• Run into a mass of enemies
  
• Once they've taken the bait drop an airstrike on yourself
  
• Hope they're too busy trying to get a kill to notice

I've smacked entire light lances with this more than a few times, and it's doubly hilarious when you survive it.

Edited by Victor Morson, 06 January 2014 - 06:56 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Hmm...

and also taunting in text too, after doing well?

[John Branon]

Xavier Wulf, on 04 January 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

Most of the time, if a single lance is in this type of situation, they often fail to deal equal damage to the enemy team and will result in a massive disadvantage for the rest of the team.

You were facing disorganised enemies who arrived one lance at a time, while you had a serious weight advantage over the first mechs you encountered. As I said your coordination was good, but it's not a situation where "most" other lances "fail to deal equal damage to the enemy team".

Quote

So, I think that every engagement is important

Do you really? That is exactly my point.

Quote

Had our lance not worked together as it did, I would bet that we would have lost.

I don't think so.

Quote

I do not put much faith in pubbies

Yeah, I got that...

Quote

So yes, you do infact win or lose as a lance.

This sentence shows an astounding ignorance to the game mechanics, a lack of tactical understanding and a problematic attitude on your part.

[Hoaggie]

NRP, on 06 January 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

Another cool vid.

Just goes to show how advantageous voice comms and good teammates can be. And how screwed the solo PUGer is when he/she has to face such opponents.

Thanks, and good point.
Get on teamspeak, stay in contact, stay alive.
www.teamspeak.com/‎

No Guts No Galaxy TS
Address: voip01.n1585.hypernia.net:9992
Password : mechwarrior

North America Unofficial MWO TS
Address: na1.mech-connect.net
Password: WordofBlake

Europe Unofficial MWO TS
Address: eu1.mech-connect.net
Password: hG5!4Dg*

Victor Morson, on 06 January 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

The correct solution to the no-win scenario:

• Run into a mass of enemies
  
• Once they've taken the bait drop an airstrike on yourself
  
• Hope they're too busy trying to get a kill to notice

I've smacked entire light lances with this more than a few times, and it's doubly hilarious when you survive it.

We were in a cave, air strikes tend not to work there.

Praetor Shepard, on 06 January 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

Hmm...

and also taunting in text too, after doing well?

Were we suppose to taunt them after doing poorly?

John Branon, on 08 January 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

This sentence shows an astounding ignorance to the game mechanics, a lack of tactical understanding and a problematic attitude on your part.

John, as of today, you have had an account for exactly four months, please explain the game mechanics to the founders. Mmm kay? Could you do that? Could you please tell us all about it, I just dont understand.

[John Branon]

Hoaggie, on 08 January 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

John, as of today, you have had an account for exactly four months, please explain the game mechanics to the founders. Mmm kay? Could you do that? Could you please tell us all about it, I just dont understand.

OK, I'll make it the version for 3 year olds, in the hope you will be able to follow:

There are two teams. One wins, the other one loses. In the winning team, every player wins. In the losing team, every player loses. In both of those teams may be players with cocky attitudes like Hoaggie or Xavier Wulf, but if their mommy finds out about their behavior, they will be sent to bed without supper.

[Hoaggie]

John Branon, on 08 January 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

OK, I'll make it the version for 3 year olds, in the hope you will be able to follow:

There are two teams. One wins, the other one loses. In the winning team, every player wins. In the losing team, every player loses. In both of those teams may be players with cocky attitudes like Hoaggie or Xavier Wulf, but if their mommy finds out about their behavior, they will be sent to bed without supper.

You really just sound upset that you can put up numbers like that. If you want to see how it's done, stop by our teamspeak and we will set you up.

[John Branon]

Hoaggie, on 08 January 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

You really just sound upset that you can put up numbers like that.

I'm usually rather delighted, not upset, when I have a high damage game. Why are you changing the subject again? Are you aware that "Me founder!!! Me loots of damage!!!" do not constitute an argument, especially not to the topic at hand?

[GRiPSViGiL]

John Branon, on 08 January 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

You were facing disorganised enemies who arrived one lance at a time, while you had a serious weight advantage over the first mechs you encountered. As I said your coordination was good, but it's not a situation where "most" other lances "fail to deal equal damage to the enemy team".


Do you really? That is exactly my point.


I don't think so.


Yeah, I got that...



This sentence shows an astounding ignorance to the game mechanics, a lack of tactical understanding and a problematic attitude on your part.

This is what I saw.

[Sephlock]

http://en.memory-alp..._Kobayashi_Maru