67 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

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

and also taunting in text too, after doing well?

Yeah, the unwarranted gloating ruined it for me, too.

(So a heavy assault lance coordinating itself via TS whipped a bunch of PUGs - most of whom kindly served themselves up one at a time in a tunnel. That hardly calls for gloating, let alone of the kind that was typed into chat at the end.)

I did appreciate the video, which made good points about how to coordinate and communicate well in a lance. But it really could have done without the bad sportsmanship.

Edited by Appogee, 10 January 2014 - 03:42 PM.

[Xavier Wulf]

John Branon, on 10 January 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

Xavier didn't give any reasons, he just said he "would bet". Why are you not demanding a reason from him?

The reason that "I would bet that we would have lost" is based on numbers. If one lance dies, as I stated, without dealing much damage; then the team is at a severe disadvantage: 8v12. Because I don't know the potential or skill level of the pubs on my team, I often assume them to be worse than they may or may not be. I often underestimate my own team and overestimate my enemies so that I can prepare for the worst case situation. It would be tactically unwise to assume that my team is amazing without any proof. It is also a tactical mistake to assume the enemies are worse than they may or may not be.

John Branon, on 10 January 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

I made that deliberately to hint at his not-teamplay-focused playstile.

In reference to my statement that you took out of context: "I do not put much faith in pubbies, BECAUSE MANY ARE NOT COMMUNICATING AND ARE OFTEN NOT THAT GOOD."

Here's some advice, whenever you make an argument there are two things to remember:
1. When you start to insult people in an argument, you essentially are admitting that you lost the argument.
2. If you are to argue effectively, you cannot take things out of context because anything you argue off of this misconception holds no significance because you are arguing about an incomplete thought or idea.

So, keeping number 2 in mind, my statement suggests the opposite of what you state. I do support teamwork and team-play. Hoaggie and myself both would love for more people to join us in our teamspeak so that we can play tactically, I would love to play with a team that successfully works together with effective communications.
*See my signature below if you wish to check us out.

John Branon, on 10 January 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

Maybe. But again, you have no problem with the problematic attitudes from Hoaggie and Xavier, so I don't think you should criticize me when I respond in kind.

In my reply I was trying to be as objective as possible. I am not sure what words make you believe that I have a "problematic attitude," but that was not/is not my intention.

If you feel inclined, feel free to join our teamspeak to discuss this if you are not actually trolling, this is not to say that you have to join us if you aren't trolling.

Edited by Xavier Wulf, 10 January 2014 - 03:51 PM.

[Nyel86]

Appogee, on 10 January 2014 - 03:35 PM, said:

Yeah, the unwarranted gloating ruined it for me, too.

(So a heavy assault lance coordinating itself via TS whipped a bunch of PUGs - most of whom kindly served themselves up one at a time in a tunnel. That hardly calls for gloating, let alone of the kind that was typed into chat at the end.)

I did appreciate the video, which made good points about how to coordinate and communicate well in a lance. But it really could have done without the bad sportsmanship.

I can understand people being put off by "gloating" and heckling. I just don't see it as a big deal. I just assume these guys were excited that they won against what they perceived to be long odds against. The thrill of success can make you say or do things you normally wouldn't. I don't begrudge them that because I know I've done it before, and I know lots of other people have done the same or worse.

Feedback like yours helps. I hope Hoaggie will either refrain from letting his lance gloat like that in the future, or have the tact to edit it out.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Nyel86, on 09 January 2014 - 06:53 PM, said:

I don't understand how the title is misleading. Granted, there are probably better titles for what the video's author portrays, but I don't see how this title doesn't apply.

I don't think offense is taken from any real constructive criticism, but all I see in this thread is a bunch of backhanded compliments following minor quibbles about the video.

I dunno, maybe I'm just naive for believing people should focus on the advice the video is trying to relay.

EDIT: Also, the real "bosses" don't need to boast at all.

I gave the reasons clearly of why the title doesn't apply to the video. I spelled out a few of the tactical reasons based on knowledge of the map and how I saw the enemy mechs react as well. If you and the guys who liked your comment do not understand then I am not sure further explaining it can help you or them understand because I would be repeating myself.

Mind you I come from a group that has 4 man's going around the clock usually and we often times single-handedly keep the 12 man queue active. So with that much coordinated drop experience at my disposal it is very easy to see why the Lance in this video was not in a no win situation and in fact had more advantages that they even knew.

As for the trash talk stuff I usually do not do it but I can dish it when I have to. Those who do it before hand then ****-face do not need to be liked but their game needs to be respected. Does ggclose ring a bell? I agree that the real Bosses do not do it and my corp reflects that sentiment.

Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 10 January 2014 - 10:16 PM.

[SaltBeef]

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.

I have seen this many times in terra therma, Charlie lances of both team sent to Epsilon other two lances go to theta seems like most of the time whether your team wins or loses depends on whether epsilon was taken (enemy lance destroyed) although I have seen it go the other way a few times ( your lance destroyed ) and some heavy hitters pull out a win somehow. Depends on which mech I have now to determine if I close to the point or hang back.

[NRP]

I wish more people who truly know what they're doing would make more instructional videos like this. I remember the series of videos Koreanese did on basic stuff like movement and aiming. I learned more from those videos than I did in months of derping around in game. Perhaps PGI could post the best of them in the game's training area so new players could watch them and see how things are supposed to be done. Some of this stuff is only useful if you have good communication and teammates who are on the same page, but a lot of this stuff can help the solo PUGer recognize good/bad situations and perhaps even anticipate good/bad situations and therefore make better decisions.

[Hoaggie]

NRP, on 12 January 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

I wish more people who truly know what they're doing would make more instructional videos like this. I remember the series of videos Koreanese did on basic stuff like movement and aiming. I learned more from those videos than I did in months of derping around in game. Perhaps PGI could post the best of them in the game's training area so new players could watch them and see how things are supposed to be done. Some of this stuff is only useful if you have good communication and teammates who are on the same page, but a lot of this stuff can help the solo PUGer recognize good/bad situations and perhaps even anticipate good/bad situations and therefore make better decisions.

Thanks man, I saw that there were already many basic tutorial videos for new players, so we (TMF) decided to put together some videos to show how to do the next step. This video is aimed at players that already have the basics down (shooting, walking, mech loadouts, ect.) and are looking to move up to the next level of play.

The learning curve in the game is pretty steep, and if you don't get on coms and talk to people it's more like a wall than a curve after a certain point.

[John Branon]

Nyel86, on 10 January 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

Your "One team wins, the other loses" didn't make sense because I couldn't believe you were being serious. You are serious and that is just depressing.

If you consider that there are now 3 or 4 people in here who dispute this simple fact, it's actually quite amusing!

[John Branon]

Sigifrid, on 10 January 2014 - 03:21 PM, said:

Not teamplay focused playstyle...really? The restriction on forming premades limits each team to only 4 mechs grouped together, unless you have enough people to field the full 12 (not a relevant situation here; see below). Therefore, working together with your lance is teamwork/teamplay.

Yeah, really. You set the bar damn low for what you consider teamplay!

If in a team of 3, one of them does not attempt to work with the other two but does his own thing instead, he is not a teamplayer. If in a team of 12, a lance of 4 players does their own thing, they are no teamplayers.

[John Branon]

Xavier Wulf, on 10 January 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

In my reply I was trying to be as objective as possible. I am not sure what words make you believe that I have a "problematic attitude," but that was not/is not my intention.

If you feel inclined, feel free to join our teamspeak to discuss this if you are not actually trolling, this is not to say that you have to join us if you aren't trolling.

This part of your post leaves me pleasantly surprised, so maybe I'll drop by sometime!

[Devil Fox]

I would've focused on valid tactics when you are overwhelmed to help the team, an example that I noticed was locked on my channel from Oct '12...



I think actually valid walk through of tactics in action, possible action discussion would've been more beneficial. Any 4man team can turn a game around depending on the enemy's behaviour.

EDIT: Upon re-watching I would've had this as a communication and co-ordination tutorial... the no-win situation was non-existent simply because the enemy walked in 1 by 1 into a co-ordinated firing line, and whilst attrition killed one lance member, it was the silly mistakes of the enemy team and the attention they gave you that clinched the match for you.

Edited by Apostal, 12 January 2014 - 08:07 PM.

[DustySkunk]

To the OP:

I just wanted to say thank you for this video. The focus on teamwork and coordination within a lance was great. Some points I especially liked that you highlighted:

1: The "wave" approach (i.e. letting damaged friendly mechs fall behind the healthy for added fire support)
2: Prioritizing targets
3: Communication, communication and more communication!

There's more, but I don't want to rehash too much of what's already been said. Please continue doing what you do.

[Nyel86]

John Branon, on 12 January 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

If you consider that there are now 3 or 4 people in here who dispute this simple fact, it's actually quite amusing!

Dispute what fact? That a winning team has winners on it? No one disputed that. No one. Why you think you are so clever for saying that is beyond me. Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, I suppose.

[Sigifrid]

John Branon, on 12 January 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

Yeah, really. You set the bar damn low for what you consider teamplay! If in a team of 3, one of them does not attempt to work with the other two but does his own thing instead, he is not a teamplayer. If in a team of 12, a lance of 4 players does their own thing, they are no teamplayers.

If you bothered to keep reading, you would have noticed that I pointed out how it is unlikely that all 12 players will be on voip together, and thus the maximum number of players that can relay information effectively is 4 players, as that is the maximum size of a premade (PGI forced that restriction, although this is not the place to debate the reasons for the 4-man premade restriction). Without the ability to verbally communicate with the rest of the squads in a drop, it is extremely difficult to effectively communicate under fire outside of your lance.

If you cannot communicate with the other squads effectively, is it possible to actively coordinate with them? The answer is no: you can lay out a basic plan with them, but plans have a habit of not surviving contact with the enemy. The best teamwork can only be achieved within a set number of players that can actively communicate. In the PuG queues, that number is 4 players.

[Nyel86]

John Branon, on 12 January 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

Yeah, really. You set the bar damn low for what you consider teamplay!

If in a team of 3, one of them does not attempt to work with the other two but does his own thing instead, he is not a teamplayer. If in a team of 12, a lance of 4 players does their own thing, they are no teamplayers.

A team of 4 players, working together, is not teamwork? Life must be harsh in Non-Founder land.

[Hoaggie]

DustySkunk, on 12 January 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

To the OP:

I just wanted to say thank you for this video. The focus on teamwork and coordination within a lance was great. Some points I especially liked that you highlighted:

1: The "wave" approach (i.e. letting damaged friendly mechs fall behind the healthy for added fire support)
2: Prioritizing targets
3: Communication, communication and more communication!

There's more, but I don't want to rehash too much of what's already been said. Please continue doing what you do.

DustySkunk, not to sound corny, but you do me much honor.

Your first post in 2 calendar years, and it is to thank me. This means a lot to everyone involved in the video.

If you ever want to play with us, let anybody with a TMF tag or signature know and we will get you on teamspeak.

[Nyel86]

Apostal, on 12 January 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

I would've focused on valid tactics when you are overwhelmed to help the team, an example that I noticed was locked on my channel from Oct '12...



I think actually valid walk through of tactics in action, possible action discussion would've been more beneficial. Any 4man team can turn a game around depending on the enemy's behaviour.

EDIT: Upon re-watching I would've had this as a communication and co-ordination tutorial... the no-win situation was non-existent simply because the enemy walked in 1 by 1 into a co-ordinated firing line, and whilst attrition killed one lance member, it was the silly mistakes of the enemy team and the attention they gave you that clinched the match for you.

I just realized your video is years old. While I appreciate you trying to help with tutorials, I don't see how this is relevant. Especially how the content was nothing more than an Atlas standing at the lip of the cauldron and died.

[Devil Fox]

Nyel86, on 13 January 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

I just realized your video is years old. While I appreciate you trying to help with tutorials, I don't see how this is relevant. Especially how the content was nothing more than an Atlas standing at the lip of the cauldron and died.

The video is a year old... but an example of actual tactical display... might be outdated in terms of current meta, and mechs being fielded but the tactic still has it's use in holding and locking down firing lines. As it was I was more critiquing the fact that this tutorial isn't what it purported to be.

It's more a display of communication and concentrated firing then a no-win situation. Simply because it was still an on-comms 4man that whilst surprised they were seen in cave (1st thing most people do is run C3 and check seismic in caves... how I catch many cave runners), but the fact that your enemy team weren't co-ordinated shown by the fact they waltzed 1 by 1 into the cave to engage. And whilst their attention was on you, you tied up enough of them for your pugs to push the ridge.

And in all honesty... a 4man on comms in a pug game should be able to identify, target, kill or encounter enemy movements. Tactics in these small maps in a pug environment are only solid at lance level, now 12's is where the try fun in tactical movement and gameplay comes to surface.

[Hoaggie]

Apostal, on 12 January 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

I would've focused on valid tactics when you are overwhelmed to help the team, an example that I noticed was locked on my channel from Oct '12...

[REDACTED for brevity]

I think actually valid walk through of tactics in action, possible action discussion would've been more beneficial. Any 4man team can turn a game around depending on the enemy's behaviour.

EDIT: Upon re-watching I would've had this as a communication and co-ordination tutorial... the no-win situation was non-existent simply because the enemy walked in 1 by 1 into a co-ordinated firing line, and whilst attrition killed one lance member, it was the silly mistakes of the enemy team and the attention they gave you that clinched the match for you.

I really made this video to contrast how to preform correctly under such circumstance, as calling out the enemy team for their mistakes, then posting a video on the forums actually violates the "name and shame" policy.

You make a point that people before you made, and it is far too late for me to change the title in the forums, if you actually looked you would see that I have changed the video name on youtube, but IMHO nine out of ten lances walking into that cave would not have done as well as we did. Even on voice coms, even knowing what was coming.

If you watched the video, they did not walk into a firing line, as we were not in a line formation. It is even specified when we broke our column formation (we didn't call it that because not everyone knows what it is). In that cave, the only way to walk into it is one at a time.

If the video is not what you expected, there is not really much I can do about it that I have not already done. In the first thirty seconds of the video there is a verbal description saying what the video is about. If you want your time back, total up the amount of money you earn per hour in your leisure time, divide that by 60, PM me and I write you an IOU. Anything you watched after that should not be complained about based on the title.

Thank you for your feedback. I will take it into consideration when naming videos in the future.

Edited by Hoaggie, 13 January 2014 - 11:17 PM.

[Nyel86]

Huh. People aren't getting the purpose of this video. I love seeing people give feedback, both positive and negative. Unfortunately, I don't see much of that in this thread. When I first read this thread I noticed that most people here were not giving pertinent criticism. It's becoming ridiculous how some people latch on to the incorrect title and then completely discredit the rest of the video, or they find some other way to say "I'm not impressed" or "Yeah well anyone can do that". I guess people just needed to find something to complain about or bring Hoaggie down a notch, so they focus on the title.

If this video didn't help you, then maybe it wasn't meant for you. If you think this video could've been done better, go make that better version yourself, in a different thread.