35 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Good evening,

I played a game a few minutes ago where the opposition decided to roll over our base. I asked people to begin moving toward our base (RTB) and received a chat-line from someone telling me where I could shove my order. The individual had become embroiled in a fight with three opponents, while the rest of their team were moving toward our base. I understood he could not get free, but his message undermined the idea I was trying to put into our Pick-Up Group, which was to get the opposition off our base. If you cannot get free, call out for assistance, do not take the time, in the middle of three enemy 'Mechs, to type out something divisive and negative.

That player did not actually cost us the match, the base was taken, but his insubordination, read as inability to play as a team member, may have been responsible for costing us the match.

Be a team player, communicate positively, and if you see a problem that you need help with, please ask for it, don't try to handle it on your own. Help may not always come, because there are too many INDIVIDUALS in the game, but you can certainly try, anyway.

Welcome to MechWarrior Online.

[luxebo]

Agreed by far. Everyone should always stick together as a team. All too often someone will get in everyone else's way just to do something.

[DarthPeanut]

Good luck. I say it almost every match and it falls on deaf ears unfortunately.

These TEAMS of 12 but yet everyone attempts to do their own thing. I am dumbfounded by it honestly, it seems so obvious to stick together, move together, and communicate.

Edited by DarthPeanut, 10 January 2014 - 08:35 PM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Fortunately, the vast majority of players do respond well to commands. You will always get those few who don't want anyone to control them.

[Tangelis]

There are "Mavericks" in every game, a side effect of pick-up groups unfortunately.

[Tiger Shark]

No different from pick up basketball or football. One player will always want to shoot 3's because that's what they like to do, or run the routes they want to run. Sort of actually makes PUG games more unpredictable and fascinating to an extent. Definitely not great for just focused on winning.

[martian]

PUGs have absolutely no reason why they should obey someone else's command because:

• you can't enforce your command
  
• if they die, they can start a new game in a minute
  
• they know that they are not damaging their "team" since there are not "teams", but random collections of players who will not probably play together again
  
• commander very often has no idea what's going on and in what situation they are in, or where is the enemy
  
• they can't inform their commander about their situation because writing a message takes so long and distracts them in their critical situation that they will be probably dead anyway
  
• they have seen too many nonsensical commands, so they don't care anymore ...

[Acierocolotl]

Martian's got it exactly.

Being that I play PUGs pretty much exclusively, I've seen a lot of nonsense. One of the most annoying forms of nonsense is some random player in my group that styles himself The Next General Patton. He usually isn't and his orders add another layer of nonsense I need to filter through.

Your "insubordinate" player was left to his own devices. He may have been playing intelligently and your command wasn't there to save him when he got three-on-one'd and probably abandoned. Without knowing the context from both sides, I'd probably side with him. You'll always do well to remember that we're all equals in a PUG. Keep that in mind next time.

All that said, it's been my experience that people respond better to, "I need backup at base," than, "OMG GET BACK TO BASE NAO" or whatever. PUGs don't always like to get yelled at, that's why they're pugging it up, not playing in the ultradeathleet clangroup.

[Bhelogan]

I find it is usually more useful to chat what YOU are going to do, rather than what you want others to do. In Pugs, people like to follow the group, so if you take lead that way, people will often follow. This works when we are in a 4 man as well. We will broadcast what our lance is going to do, and let the pugs decide on what is best for them accordingly.

[Darth Futuza]

I"m surprised he bothered even replying back since he was in a fight with three enemy mechs. If it had been me I would have ignored your order, or said something like, "Help 3 mechs trying to kill me".

But yeah, please try to help your team, matches are SO MUCH MORE FUN when people communicate and work like a team.

[Rebas Kradd]

You always have a few kids who think it's awesome to strut and flaunt and go "NOBODY GOT NOTHIN ON ME B****" in a video game. I usually ignore 'em and let them die early on, griping about no help when they're the ones who ran off by themselves.

[Threat Doc]

TheCaptainJZ, on 11 January 2014 - 01:40 AM, said:

You will always get those few who don't want anyone to control them.

See, but no one who puts their nuts on the table -in my experience, for the most part- are trying to "control" anyone. I realize that may be their twisted version of reality, though it is not, most typically, fact.

Acierocolotl, on 11 January 2014 - 01:37 PM, said:

One of the most annoying forms of nonsense is some random player in my group that styles himself The Next General Patton. He usually isn't and his orders add another layer of nonsense I need to filter through.

Is it that whoever has taken command is trying to establish themself as "The Next General Patton", or is that YOUR viewpoint. Most of the people I've run into who are willing to take command, have SOME idea what it is they want to do, and many -not all, obviously- use the BattleGrid to begin throwing out commands for their insight on the situation. From my viewpoint, as someone who has commanded, and will be commanding, again, I know I'm not looking to style myself as "The Next General Patton", but I am looking to herd cats and put them on a mission that will allow them to win. I took command, using the BattleGrid, three times when I was running Armageddon Unlimited, between April and September 2012, and I had to take my lumps when I either didn't make a proper command, or when they were wrong -twice. I've also taken command one time, a story I relayed in this thread, already, and with the things I did, I helped us come to a win, when we could very easily have lost, and were on the verge of losing when we took the field back, and then stomped mudholes in the enemy team. Had I not taken command, we might very well still have won, but we did not. My fault, in that game, was that I didn't keep up with the flow of the combat... my initial order should have been for about two minutes, and then releasing Lances to track down the remaining opposition.

If that makes me a "Next General Patton" in your mind, perhaps you should examine what military organization is.

Quote

Your "insubordinate" player was left to his own devices. He may have been playing intelligently and your command wasn't there to save him when he got three-on-one'd and probably abandoned. Without knowing the context from both sides, I'd probably side with him. You'll always do well to remember that we're all equals in a PUG. Keep that in mind next time.

I'll tell you exactly what happened, from my view of the BattleGrid... the guy crossed two grid squares to engage three enemy 'Mechs he was tracking, when more than half of our team was on our base's half of the map. He put himself in that situation, when he could have turned away; he could have called for help and, instead, got lippy. He was insubordinate, and he died; whether he deserved it or not, I have chosen to think of him sacrificing himself for the good of the group, holding those three 'Mechs up to give us precious time to take out others on our base.

I have found myself jumping in where angels fear to tread, and I deserved exactly what I got; I doubt he thinks that way. Had his situational awareness have been better, and he would have attempted to disengage and call out for help, we could have stopped the three and not allowed them to come up our back sides, and we could have held those on and around our base long enough to do so, and then finish them. Unfortunately, that didn't work.

Quote

All that said, it's been my experience that people respond better to, "I need backup at base," than, "OMG GET BACK TO BASE NAO" or whatever. PUGs don't always like to get yelled at, that's why they're pugging it up, not playing in the ultradeathleet clangroup.

You make it sound like being a part of a unit is a bad thing. {shrug} Let the PUGs die. I can't wait until UI 2.0 and the unit v unit quality of it allows the changes to PUGs that are coming.

Bhelogan, on 11 January 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

I find it is usually more useful to chat what YOU are going to do, rather than what you want others to do. In Pugs, people like to follow the group, so if you take lead that way, people will often follow. This works when we are in a 4 man as well. We will broadcast what our lance is going to do, and let the pugs decide on what is best for them accordingly.

See, I've tried that, but the response is far more limited than telling people what to do, universally. If I'm in a PUG Lance, and I give a common sense command, such as "Let's join the others at {grid reference}", I find them more amenable to following further orders later in the drop. Still, it can be useful to ask, "Hey, I'm going to {grid reference or identified map feature}, who wants to come with me?" can be very helpful, and I typically get a VERY good response.

Darth Futuza, on 11 January 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

I"m surprised he bothered even replying back since he was in a fight with three enemy mechs. If it had been me I would have ignored your order, or said something like, "Help 3 mechs trying to kill me".

Precisely, and it would have helped us to know what was going on. But, no, he wanted to be stupid -if insubordinate is not correct, that word must be-, wanted to be a maverick, to do his own thing.

The thing that kills me about people answering in this thread that no one should believe they should take command and try to make a way to win the game, begins with the question, "Who is more arrogant or asinine: the guy who takes command and tries to pull out a win, or the guy who stomps off on his own and simply expects people to be paying attention to the mini and follow him without a word?" For my part, if you're not willing to try to help win the game, you're just being a jackass, and you deserve what you get. This is a multiplayer military simulation game, not a first-person shooter, so if you're playing it like the latter, don't expect to win; if someone believes they're strong enough to lead the PUG, take command, and hope to pull out a win by various ways and means, they are bold enough to be followed, with the following caveat...

if you ask them what they want to have done, and they come up with something stupid, they are worthy of being left alone.

Quote

But yeah, please try to help your team, matches are SO MUCH MORE FUN when people communicate and work like a team.

Someone else in this thread mentioned that we're all the same on that battlefield, and that's a bald-faced lie! If someone believes they are capable of taking command and pulling off a win, despite the absolute ignorance of someone thinking they are just trying to be head-boss-leader-of-the-PUG, they are better than other members who are just there to fight and complain.

'Nuff said.

[Craig Steele]

DarthPeanut, on 10 January 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

Good luck. I say it almost every match and it falls on deaf ears unfortunately.

These TEAMS of 12 but yet everyone attempts to do their own thing. I am dumbfounded by it honestly, it seems so obvious to stick together, move together, and communicate.

While I understand the sentiment of this "stick together" thing, its not the be all and end all.

The key concept is not concentration of mechs, but concentration of firepower.

So many times I see 6 or 7 mechs bunched up behind one corner in Canyon, or a crest on TT, one shooting and the others "concentrating". It's just an absolute fallacy and a recipe for disaster.

If 2 mechs flank an enemy and they time their arrival just after the main battle lines have connected, thats concentration of firepower (and more often than not a good outcome for the team). 2 each flank, even better. If they get intercepted by an enemy lance they get wiped out, but thats the risk right. It takes spreading out and co ordination.

The Conga line might seem a good place to start, but really is a failed formation.

Just because someone doesn't group up, doesn't mean they are not trying.

[Craig Steele]

martian, on 11 January 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

• 
  
• they have seen too many nonsensical commands, so they don't care anymore ...

This, personally i always try and follow orders if someone is brave enough to take command. But too many times my Jenner has been ordered to defend a piece of open territory like the water on Forest colony that I now just go, "ummmmm, yeah....no"

[Mercer Skye]

What I most often see, is one person saying 'group up,' and hauling tail three grids away, leaving the slower bits of the team away, and stringing the different rigs out between them and the 'rearguard,' of which usually gets picked apart by lights, and somehow they're amazed that their 'glorious leadership' didn't eke out a win.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Kay Wolf, on 13 January 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

<lots of words>

You make some good points but fail to address one salient point, at least that I saw.

How can we tell that the person grabbing control actually has a clue and isn't some {Dezgra} who is just spamming commands?

Also, leaving the Ball O' Death to head off to follow commands might lead to the PUGs being murdered while me and a few others twiddle our thumbs defending a point that isn't attacked until they have a 2-1 advantage.....

So unless I know the guy who grabs the commander position, I generally ignore what they say.

Also, often the commander slot is grabbed to prevent a pre-made being broken up. It's not such a big deal with the shortened clock, but it also pretty much means there is no time for the commander to establish his bonafides and set up a plan of attack.

Maybe after UI 2.0 things will be different, but outside of pre-mades etc, I doubt it.

[Threat Doc]

What I would like to see, as well, is Lances work as Lances, but too many people like to run off on their own.

Nick Makiaveli, on 13 January 2014 - 06:49 PM, said:

How can we tell that the person grabbing control actually has a clue and isn't some {Dezgra} who is just spamming commands?

That's the risk taken by following the command of someone else. Typically, if someone has balls enough to take command, they're going to have a clue for what they want to do, but most have no real means of "verbally" AND, through the BattleGrid, signalling what they want to do. It's going to be pretty obvious, and quickly -especially if they don't have a BattleGrid assignment done in the first three or less minutes-, if someone has no clue what they're doing. For my part, I'm waiting until I have AU up and running, again, though I've been sorely tempted to take command, again, several times.

Quote

Also, leaving the Ball O' Death to head off to follow commands might lead to the PUGs being murdered while me and a few others twiddle our thumbs defending a point that isn't attacked until they have a 2-1 advantage...

Agreed. While there are unrefined souls who couldn't assign Lances if their lives depended on it, thus relying on the murder ball for the win, there are others who have a clue.

Quote

So unless I know the guy who grabs the commander position, I generally ignore what they say.

Also, often the commander slot is grabbed to prevent a pre-made being broken up. It's not such a big deal with the shortened clock, but it also pretty much means there is no time for the commander to establish his bonafides and set up a plan of attack.

Maybe after UI 2.0 things will be different, but outside of pre-mades etc, I doubt it.

I am also hoping that UI 2.0 will change a lot of things; it's supposed to be a whole new intuitive interface ball game after, and I truly hope it is. The problem with not following someone with balls enough to take command, and who actually tries to be a commander, is that commander will not gain any more confidence, will become discouraged, and then all you have are big murder fests.

There is still time to reverse this trend.

[Craig Steele]

UI 2.0, the great saviour of MWo.

Like Mel Gibson in Braveheart

Or Sean Connery in James Bond

Or Bruce Willis in Die Hard

No matter what the ends. no matter what the challenge. UI 2.0 is going to get the job done.

[martian]

I'd like to say one or two things, if I may ...

So-called Commander has absolutely no idea how my 'Mech is armed ...
- it's nice that he ordered me to defend this wide and open valley, but I am sitting in my JagerMech with two AC-20s

So-called Commander has absolutely no idea how my 'Mech is fast ...
- it's nice that he ordered all our 'Mechs to regroup in A1, but I will need two hours to get there in my CTF-4X Cataphract from my dropzone in Z9

So-called Commander has absolutely no idea how my 'Mech is armored and engined ...
- my fragile Catapult can't hold that pass against enemy lance, face to face

So-called Commander has absolutely no idea how much ammo my 'Mech has ...
- I have fought from the start and my ammo bins are almost empty ...

So-called Commander has absolutely no idea if I am a newb playing my first game or veteran with two thousands of combat drops ....
- it's nice that this so-called Commander has a beautiful plan in his mind, but he was too lazy or stupid to disclose it to our team (actually, it's impossible with this stupid and worthless chat that is often filled with nonsenses, would-be jokes and random babbling), and he changed his plan mid-game anyway

So-called Commander has absolutely no idea where the enemy is ...
- sadly, our random team has no scouts whatsoever. Can successful commander really command without knowing position of his enemy? Moves he has ordered are pure farce ....

So-called Commander has absolutely no idea where the enemy will be in two minutes ...
- the MWO offers no simple way how to inform your team about enemy strength and disposition. "Enemy in D5" or "Four in H7" are absolutely useless. Are those "Four" Jenners, Hunchbacks or Highlanders? So-called Commander is silent because he simply doesn't know more than any other member of our team knows ...

So much for "Commander".

THe problem is that MWO is supposed to be a "game of teamwork and cooperation", but all instruments how to achieve that are insufficient or outright missing.

And one clue: Command Console.
It's a sad irony that thing designed to help with lance-, company- or battalion coordination is only worthless placeholder.
"MWO", "teamwork", "Command Console" - yeah, sure, _ _ _ _

I don't care about "Commander" and I am ready to throw him over the board at any moment.
When I am reading some especially stupid command, I mentally show him a finger and mutter: "Yeah, sure, you _ _ _ _."

[Helsbane]

Get yourself a dozen cats, then attempt to get them all into one corner of a room using only an electric leaf blower. Getting any semblance of coordination from PuGs requires twice the effort as the aforementioned task.