Last few nights I've had some very very late discussions on the issue of the latest patch and game balance. Then lo... a light cut through the clutter and uttered a point of sanity in this, and I paraphrase my compatriot Cranect:
"Regardless of what is done to the LRMs, people are going to continue to play a low risk high reward game, and that means sniping and shooting from cover and poptarting because they're scared to get hit."
Further it is pointed out that so many players are not risking themselves because of games where one shot is insta dead and time to respawn. With a game that has no respawn... well, that means people play extra cautious because they want to live, even if it means the game's more boring. Those same rage causing snipers the brawlers here hated in COD or in a dozen other shooters, or the grenade launcher freaks are all here too, doing the same tactics that served them so well over there.
Just in MWO, it's a bit of a twist that it is not one shot/dead in most cases. You still have to play smart, but... yeah... the risk is less.
So really, the issue about "why yu no brawl" is beyond the weapons and into the players themselves. This also harkens back to real world combat tactics that work because they worked for centuries. Archers soften the infantry, flanking cavalry runs them into the ground and then your line goes in to clean up what's left with the cavalry or variations thereof. There's no reason to just stand out there with your man card tattooed to your chest and scream "come get some!" Some sniper's going to hand you your lunch because it works.
Brawling is a High risk/High reward tactic. Sure you rack up lots of damage and C-Bills, but you also have the highest risk of your game ending short from another brawler if not a sniper or LRM mech because you did not stay close to cover or out of sight.
Sniping and LRMing is a Low Risk/High Reward tactic. Sure they may suck close range, but let's face it, if they can drop the charging brawler before he gets to them, Achievement Completed! If not... they better be good with the few backup MLs they have. Since this can be done from hiding and cover, and it's a well known smart tactical and strategic componant of EVERY FPS I've heard of or seen and can find thousands of rage vids on Youtube about stupid campers/snipers/blablah... it is going to be here too.
What's the solution? Educating the populace? Sure, but you're not going to make people adverse to an AC20 in the face suddenly say okay because you explained the elegance of brawling when they suck at it. It's like challenging your little brother to arm wrestle as when you're 20 and they're 12. Really? Yeah, no.
Can you just nerf all the weapons to be close range? Watch most of your gamer base walk out the door as the game devolves into button mashing Virtumecha Fighter.
How about making maps that are all cover? Well, you then make all these weapon systems useless and penalize those who spent real money and game money to make their favorite mechs walk out the door. Plus consider how often you hated hunting the shutdown mech who's found it easy to hide in a labyrinth because it's an 11-1 roflestomp on skirmish.
No, You are not going to get people who are not interested in High Risk tactics to change from Low Risk success.... unless...
....The reward is raised higher still for getting in close. Of course this creates an artificial or false 'economy' of behavior. If I can get something of value by playing a close range high risk style that I cannot get while playing a safer long range style... maybe I'll start considering it.
That is the only way you're going to change the game. Give unfair reward to the preferred play style. 250k Cbills or 100MC for killing 5 mechs in a match with flamers? Challenge Accepted! You'll have "Death by Barbeque" till that is removed! Will it be good for the game? pfft! If you said yes, here's your pointy hat and go sit in the corner. Artificial economies of reward create more flaw issues than just letting the game play out it's meta naturally every single time. The current attempts to 'fix' the meta are proof of that.
But to get back to the main point. Risk must be outweighed by reward for players to change their desired style. That means either lowering the risk, or increasing the reward for doing something risky.
Till then, welcome to what we got.
3
Risk Versus Reward
Started by Kjudoon, Mar 22 2014 04:45 PM
27 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 22 March 2014 - 05:00 PM
Don't agree with everything you said but good post. The thing is, there's plenty of players that buck the "meta" and do very well at it. Myself and plenty of others I team up with don't play that style of match or run those weapons.
If you want a meta changed, then just take mechs and loadouts that don't adhere to the current meta. I love my lasers. I can boat them on just about any mech and do well with them.
One thing that gets overlooked a lot of times is the fact that you have to rely on a minimum of 8 random players to determine how well your team does. That means you can't control your w/l record based purely on skill or tactics or builds. I have literally had games where I personally killed 4 mechs, the rest of my premade took out another 5. That means the four of us took out 9 mechs. We lost
How do you counter that? How do you counter an entire lance that does less than 100 damage? How do you prepare for 1-2 players discoing at the beginning of a match to "protest" a map they don't like?
How do you counter 2-3 players just going full Rambo and dying in the first 45 seconds of the game?
You can't. Individual skill isn't enough in a team based game where you're required to rely on strangers for the majority of your team.
If you want a meta changed, then just take mechs and loadouts that don't adhere to the current meta. I love my lasers. I can boat them on just about any mech and do well with them.
One thing that gets overlooked a lot of times is the fact that you have to rely on a minimum of 8 random players to determine how well your team does. That means you can't control your w/l record based purely on skill or tactics or builds. I have literally had games where I personally killed 4 mechs, the rest of my premade took out another 5. That means the four of us took out 9 mechs. We lost
How do you counter that? How do you counter an entire lance that does less than 100 damage? How do you prepare for 1-2 players discoing at the beginning of a match to "protest" a map they don't like?
How do you counter 2-3 players just going full Rambo and dying in the first 45 seconds of the game?
You can't. Individual skill isn't enough in a team based game where you're required to rely on strangers for the majority of your team.
#3
-
-
- Rage
- 7,636 posts
Member
- LocationWisconsin
Posted 22 March 2014 - 05:31 PM
To beat the meta, you must prove there is something better than the meta and wait for copycats. Then beat them.
#4
Posted 22 March 2014 - 05:46 PM
Kjudoon, on 22 March 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:
To beat the meta, you must prove there is something better than the meta and wait for copycats. Then beat them.
Exactly
I've gotten a few teammates to use lasers more often after watching me. They will sit in my cockpit and see how I play them and come out with a few kills and 600+ damage on a regular basis so then they start experimenting. Some people just aren't going to do well with certain mechs and weapons because it doesn't fit their individual style. I am nowhere NEAR as good with ballistics as I am lasers so that's why I started teaching myself how to use them effectively, tactics, etc.
It was a little rough at first while "finding my groove" but once I did. PEW PEW PEW baby
There's ALWAYS going to be a meta. It's generally going to be whatever is the easiest to min/max with and easiest to use overall. Doesn't matter which weapon, mech, or combination it is and you'll always have those that don't like the meta and think there's something PGI should do to "fix" it.
#5
-
-
- The Pest
- 2,648 posts
Member
Posted 23 March 2014 - 09:34 AM
Very good points you two. Sadly it boils down to manipulate people's greed to get them to play. I personally, tend to favour using "bad mechs" purely for the challenge of it.
I'm a laser fan too by the way, and delight in taking off jaeger's shoulders with ER larges as much as I can. These past few days have been pleasure for me-so may FOTM boaters, that are so unaware of the perils of an lrm boat.....
Also, I'd love for melee to be put into the game then, oh my I'd be playing mechs like: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rokurokubi ...
But, I can't blame people I suppose for wanting self gratification and an easy going route to that gratification-but that does mean I have to like it-or them for doing it:)
Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do that thing.
I'm a laser fan too by the way, and delight in taking off jaeger's shoulders with ER larges as much as I can. These past few days have been pleasure for me-so may FOTM boaters, that are so unaware of the perils of an lrm boat.....
Also, I'd love for melee to be put into the game then, oh my I'd be playing mechs like: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rokurokubi ...
But, I can't blame people I suppose for wanting self gratification and an easy going route to that gratification-but that does mean I have to like it-or them for doing it:)
Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do that thing.
#6
-
-
- Giant Helper
- 1,286 posts
Member
Posted 23 March 2014 - 10:03 AM
In actual combat, it's about using tactics and strategy to cause as much damage to the enemy's ability to fight with the minimal loss to your own resources. You use various weapons systems that do different things because they offer advantages and disadvantages over other systems, and the reason guided missiles are used instead of guns are that they offer advantages in most situations. That doesn't mean guns have been abandoned, but that they fill roles where using a missile would be a poor choice.
In games, the point is to provide fun to the player regardless of such tiresome things as tactics or strategy, instead concentrating on the visual appeal (eye-candy), excitement factor (how much is happening at once), and twitch fighting (physical reflexes instead of thought). Play is intended to stimulate without requiring work, and efforts are made to ensure the players are kept happy, including making sure they don't have to face consequences for bad moves. Respawn is almost always part of a game because it's more important to keep players happy than to make them realize that a fatal mistake is final, and there are times when you simply cannot win.
MWO began as a simulation of actual combat, then almost immediately began the slide into a game when the devs realized most of those who would play had no tolerance for being presented with what combat actually is, even in a simulated environment. This has continued as players put more premium on feeling good than challenge, on not having to push themselves over having to think. It can continue on this course, eventually being a game where players fire foam weapons at each other and can respawn indefinitely if they happen to stub their mech's toes on terrain, or it can become more of a simulation where people can discover what it is like to pilot a war machine on a battlefield where you have to fight smart or be just another casualty in war.
In a game, risk and reward are balanced, but ultimate risk is removed. In a simulation, risk and reward are not balanced because that is dependent on the tactics and strategy the participants choose, with ultimate risk at stake. Asking for all risks and rewards be perfectly balanced would be a push away from a simulation and into the game realm, and I'm not even sure it could be done without reducing the game/simulation to a single activity, where people only do one thing with one tool in one environment.
To the current point in contention, there will always be some system that offers more benefit than risk....that is called good tactics. The so-called 'pop-tart' is not a system feature, but a tactic that people came up in using that system. LRMs are much the same way, offering tactics that can work if people know how to use them, but also with severe penalties if people ignore their limitations and the enemy doesn't. The capabilities of the systems involved allow for the tactics and strategy, which is what is really what people don't seem to be able to deal with. Every other weapon system in the game offers the same kind of very big advantages if used right, very big disadvantages if used badly, but it is up to the participants to do the work of using both. That is was combat is.
Anyway, risk vrs reward should not guide MWO unless it is clearly far out of balance. And right now, that isn't the case for most systems, including LRMs.
My opinion.
In games, the point is to provide fun to the player regardless of such tiresome things as tactics or strategy, instead concentrating on the visual appeal (eye-candy), excitement factor (how much is happening at once), and twitch fighting (physical reflexes instead of thought). Play is intended to stimulate without requiring work, and efforts are made to ensure the players are kept happy, including making sure they don't have to face consequences for bad moves. Respawn is almost always part of a game because it's more important to keep players happy than to make them realize that a fatal mistake is final, and there are times when you simply cannot win.
MWO began as a simulation of actual combat, then almost immediately began the slide into a game when the devs realized most of those who would play had no tolerance for being presented with what combat actually is, even in a simulated environment. This has continued as players put more premium on feeling good than challenge, on not having to push themselves over having to think. It can continue on this course, eventually being a game where players fire foam weapons at each other and can respawn indefinitely if they happen to stub their mech's toes on terrain, or it can become more of a simulation where people can discover what it is like to pilot a war machine on a battlefield where you have to fight smart or be just another casualty in war.
In a game, risk and reward are balanced, but ultimate risk is removed. In a simulation, risk and reward are not balanced because that is dependent on the tactics and strategy the participants choose, with ultimate risk at stake. Asking for all risks and rewards be perfectly balanced would be a push away from a simulation and into the game realm, and I'm not even sure it could be done without reducing the game/simulation to a single activity, where people only do one thing with one tool in one environment.
To the current point in contention, there will always be some system that offers more benefit than risk....that is called good tactics. The so-called 'pop-tart' is not a system feature, but a tactic that people came up in using that system. LRMs are much the same way, offering tactics that can work if people know how to use them, but also with severe penalties if people ignore their limitations and the enemy doesn't. The capabilities of the systems involved allow for the tactics and strategy, which is what is really what people don't seem to be able to deal with. Every other weapon system in the game offers the same kind of very big advantages if used right, very big disadvantages if used badly, but it is up to the participants to do the work of using both. That is was combat is.
Anyway, risk vrs reward should not guide MWO unless it is clearly far out of balance. And right now, that isn't the case for most systems, including LRMs.
My opinion.
#8
-
-
- The Jaws
- 6,368 posts
Member
- Locationnowhere
Posted 23 March 2014 - 10:06 AM
Sandpit, on 22 March 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:
Don't agree with everything you said but good post. The thing is, there's plenty of players that buck the "meta" and do very well at it. Myself and plenty of others I team up with don't play that style of match or run those weapons.
If you want a meta changed, then just take mechs and loadouts that don't adhere to the current meta. I love my lasers. I can boat them on just about any mech and do well with them.
One thing that gets overlooked a lot of times is the fact that you have to rely on a minimum of 8 random players to determine how well your team does. That means you can't control your w/l record based purely on skill or tactics or builds. I have literally had games where I personally killed 4 mechs, the rest of my premade took out another 5. That means the four of us took out 9 mechs. We lost
How do you counter that? How do you counter an entire lance that does less than 100 damage? How do you prepare for 1-2 players discoing at the beginning of a match to "protest" a map they don't like?
How do you counter 2-3 players just going full Rambo and dying in the first 45 seconds of the game?
You can't. Individual skill isn't enough in a team based game where you're required to rely on strangers for the majority of your team.
If you want a meta changed, then just take mechs and loadouts that don't adhere to the current meta. I love my lasers. I can boat them on just about any mech and do well with them.
One thing that gets overlooked a lot of times is the fact that you have to rely on a minimum of 8 random players to determine how well your team does. That means you can't control your w/l record based purely on skill or tactics or builds. I have literally had games where I personally killed 4 mechs, the rest of my premade took out another 5. That means the four of us took out 9 mechs. We lost
How do you counter that? How do you counter an entire lance that does less than 100 damage? How do you prepare for 1-2 players discoing at the beginning of a match to "protest" a map they don't like?
How do you counter 2-3 players just going full Rambo and dying in the first 45 seconds of the game?
You can't. Individual skill isn't enough in a team based game where you're required to rely on strangers for the majority of your team.
this.... this..... awsome
#9
-
-
- Bad Company
- 460 posts
Member
Posted 23 March 2014 - 11:25 AM
Jakob Knight, on 23 March 2014 - 10:03 AM, said:
Anyway, risk vrs reward should not guide MWO unless it is clearly far out of balance. And right now, that isn't the case for most systems, including LRMs.
I agree that risk vs. reward should not guide it. I think that right now everything is ok. What started the discussion Kjudoon is talking about is that somebody was talking about how there needs to be more brawling and how the missiles and such are overpowered. I was saying that the reason there isnt as much brawling is more due to peoples thought processes than due to it being ineffective. I think brawling works wonderfully. I only use the meta jenner and everything else I have is of my own creation. I know the weak area of the meta and the lrms is up close so if I can get 3 other guys to follow me to that distance it normally turns out well. I think that the risk vs. reward is part of the reason people play the long distance game but it has more to do with the way people think than anything else.
#10
-
-
- The Pest
- 2,648 posts
Member
Posted 23 March 2014 - 12:07 PM
Good points there Cranect, I think we are just seeing the fruits of human nature in action.
I may take a dim view of it, I may not like it but I am stuck with it.
I just wish people would be more honest with it. I just wish peeps would hold up their hands and say "yeah, I know it's easy mode, I know doing that is gaming the system but it's what I like and it's more relaxing" at least then it's honest.
What irks me is when people do all kinds of logic gymnastics to try to defend what they are doing-when they know they are in the wrong. Just admit it, we may not agree on it-but at least it's out in the open and honest.
Awhile back I ran into a DDC premade, one of them said near the end of the match he knew they were cheap and apologised-but he said they were simply tired of losing vs overweight teams, so they joined in. Whilst I didn't like it-I could then appreciate how they felt.
It's just not something I'll do.
I may take a dim view of it, I may not like it but I am stuck with it.
I just wish people would be more honest with it. I just wish peeps would hold up their hands and say "yeah, I know it's easy mode, I know doing that is gaming the system but it's what I like and it's more relaxing" at least then it's honest.
What irks me is when people do all kinds of logic gymnastics to try to defend what they are doing-when they know they are in the wrong. Just admit it, we may not agree on it-but at least it's out in the open and honest.
Awhile back I ran into a DDC premade, one of them said near the end of the match he knew they were cheap and apologised-but he said they were simply tired of losing vs overweight teams, so they joined in. Whilst I didn't like it-I could then appreciate how they felt.
It's just not something I'll do.
#11
-
-
- Shredder
- 1,935 posts
Member
- LocationFree Rasalhague Republic
Posted 23 March 2014 - 12:30 PM
All good , and interesting posts.
As to Brawling, until melee and collision are added you can have no real brawlers, just the illusion of brawlers, which leaves the brawler user feeling that they are missing something, and that something is melee.
Logically thinking, how can one have a brawler that can not harm another mech by brawling (melee) but instead damage enemy mechs only with ranged weapons.
The QQ about Long range, LRM's, poptarts. all keeping the 'Brawler' from closing the range so it can engage in melee when we have no melee is bound to end in frustration for that player.
As to Brawling, until melee and collision are added you can have no real brawlers, just the illusion of brawlers, which leaves the brawler user feeling that they are missing something, and that something is melee.
Logically thinking, how can one have a brawler that can not harm another mech by brawling (melee) but instead damage enemy mechs only with ranged weapons.
The QQ about Long range, LRM's, poptarts. all keeping the 'Brawler' from closing the range so it can engage in melee when we have no melee is bound to end in frustration for that player.
#12
Posted 23 March 2014 - 12:39 PM
kamiko kross, on 23 March 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:
Awhile back I ran into a DDC premade, one of them said near the end of the match he knew they were cheap and apologised-but he said they were simply tired of losing vs overweight teams, so they joined in. Whilst I didn't like it-I could then appreciate how they felt.
It's just not something I'll do.
I can't coutn the number of times I'm dropping with teammates and we've got a good mix of mechs and builds and after about the 4th or 5th stomp where we do decent damage, kills, scores, etc. but the rest of our team crumples, or we just get out tonned by 400 tons, we just finally decide to jump in our "go to" mechs so we can win a few.
Most (actually ALL) of the guys I drop with don't use meta humping builds but we do like our heavies and assaults and we have those as our favorite rides.
Abivard, on 23 March 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:
All good , and interesting posts.
As to Brawling, until melee and collision are added you can have no real brawlers, just the illusion of brawlers, which leaves the brawler user feeling that they are missing something, and that something is melee.
Logically thinking, how can one have a brawler that can not harm another mech by brawling (melee) but instead damage enemy mechs only with ranged weapons.
The QQ about Long range, LRM's, poptarts. all keeping the 'Brawler' from closing the range so it can engage in melee when we have no melee is bound to end in frustration for that player.
As to Brawling, until melee and collision are added you can have no real brawlers, just the illusion of brawlers, which leaves the brawler user feeling that they are missing something, and that something is melee.
Logically thinking, how can one have a brawler that can not harm another mech by brawling (melee) but instead damage enemy mechs only with ranged weapons.
The QQ about Long range, LRM's, poptarts. all keeping the 'Brawler' from closing the range so it can engage in melee when we have no melee is bound to end in frustration for that player.
brawling isn't melee
Btech isn't built around melee and it was an extremely risky thing to do in TT. You fell over, did massive damage to yourself, etc.
Brawling here means getting up in the face of the enemy mech and using short range weapons to deal your damage. This game is not built to punch and kick, hopefully it NEVER is.
#13
-
-
- The Pest
- 2,648 posts
Member
Posted 23 March 2014 - 05:03 PM
Fair enough Sandpit-like I said, I do understand why it's done:)
It's just I refuse to do it. If I jump in my jaeger, I'm making the issue worse for someone else. I hate it, and probably the poor sap I outgun and outarmour feels the same. It makes me so very mad, I won't make the issue worse.
So my firestarters and ravens and cicadas are seeing some use-oh and my lonely hunchback:)
Maybe I'll start playing heavies again after the 3/3/3/3 comes in. Won't feel so cheap then!
It's just I refuse to do it. If I jump in my jaeger, I'm making the issue worse for someone else. I hate it, and probably the poor sap I outgun and outarmour feels the same. It makes me so very mad, I won't make the issue worse.
So my firestarters and ravens and cicadas are seeing some use-oh and my lonely hunchback:)
Maybe I'll start playing heavies again after the 3/3/3/3 comes in. Won't feel so cheap then!
#14
Posted 23 March 2014 - 05:56 PM
kamiko kross, on 23 March 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:
Fair enough Sandpit-like I said, I do understand why it's done:)
It's just I refuse to do it. If I jump in my jaeger, I'm making the issue worse for someone else. I hate it, and probably the poor sap I outgun and outarmour feels the same. It makes me so very mad, I won't make the issue worse.
So my firestarters and ravens and cicadas are seeing some use-oh and my lonely hunchback:)
Maybe I'll start playing heavies again after the 3/3/3/3 comes in. Won't feel so cheap then!
It's just I refuse to do it. If I jump in my jaeger, I'm making the issue worse for someone else. I hate it, and probably the poor sap I outgun and outarmour feels the same. It makes me so very mad, I won't make the issue worse.
So my firestarters and ravens and cicadas are seeing some use-oh and my lonely hunchback:)
Maybe I'll start playing heavies again after the 3/3/3/3 comes in. Won't feel so cheap then!
I don't like it either to be honest, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I LIKE my Stalker. It's been my favorite mech since I first bought one. I run around in it because I like it, that's one of the ways I enjoy the game
#15
-
-
- The Jaws
- 6,368 posts
Member
- Locationnowhere
Posted 23 March 2014 - 10:46 PM
Kjudoon, on 22 March 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:
To beat the meta, you must prove there is something better than the meta and wait for copycats. Then beat them.
I never played this game with any knowledge on what the meta is. All the while still maintaining a 1.0 kill ratio
#16
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 3,495 posts
Member
- LocationThe Dark Side of the Moon
Posted 23 March 2014 - 11:11 PM
Sandpit, on 22 March 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:
Individual skill isn't enough in a team based game where you're required to rely on strangers for the majority of your team.
That's why we should make every effort to make 12-mans work. If a group has dozens or even hundreds of members, there's no excuse.
Edited by Triordinant, 23 March 2014 - 11:18 PM.
#17
-
-
- Wrath
- 4,571 posts
Member
Posted 24 March 2014 - 01:06 AM
I'm all for melee combat. And if you want to get a kill, you have to kill the pilot with one of your mech feet. So you can down a mech from range but that's just the metal. to get the kill (and the reward) you have to go there and stomp his cockpit to death.
Ok, a bit violent and all, but those tears would be epic when all our highego elo players do there poptarting work only to get the kills stolen by some jenners... or even better hunchbacks and centurions 
Ok, a bit violent and all, but those tears would be epic when all our high
#18
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 2,861 posts
Member
- LocationGermany
Posted 24 March 2014 - 01:29 AM
I'm one of those AC20/SRM In-your-face brawlers and only pugging. And sometimes I'm able to make my team follow my orders and when I do we usually win.
Why?
Because its damn easy. If you are with your team and you got 6-7 following you and you run into an group of enemy mechs, just go out and see how many are there, it won't kill you, if they are less than you (say 3 or 4), RUN OUT AND KILL EM. Close the distance, get really close and finish them.
Advantage in numbers is the only thing that counts in this game. You always will win with a bigger group.
If they are more than you, back off, dont stand there, but back off into the distance. If they are 9 and you are only 6, back off and search with your other 6 teammates the other 3 from their team and kill those, then get back at the 9 with your 11-12 man.
You just need one guy that know this tactic and if everybody listens you will always win. And its damn fun since you can even win with only brawler builds and have a ton of fun brawling it out.
but in PUGs it usually doesnt work, either becuase people are not listening or they are too afraid to go out even if its a sure win. They often just puss out.
Why?
Because its damn easy. If you are with your team and you got 6-7 following you and you run into an group of enemy mechs, just go out and see how many are there, it won't kill you, if they are less than you (say 3 or 4), RUN OUT AND KILL EM. Close the distance, get really close and finish them.
Advantage in numbers is the only thing that counts in this game. You always will win with a bigger group.
If they are more than you, back off, dont stand there, but back off into the distance. If they are 9 and you are only 6, back off and search with your other 6 teammates the other 3 from their team and kill those, then get back at the 9 with your 11-12 man.
You just need one guy that know this tactic and if everybody listens you will always win. And its damn fun since you can even win with only brawler builds and have a ton of fun brawling it out.
but in PUGs it usually doesnt work, either becuase people are not listening or they are too afraid to go out even if its a sure win. They often just puss out.
Edited by TexAss, 24 March 2014 - 01:32 AM.
#19
-
-
- Wrath
- 4,571 posts
Member
Posted 24 March 2014 - 01:37 AM
TexAss, on 24 March 2014 - 01:29 AM, said:
just go out and see how many are there, it won't kill you
Oh hell it will, more often than not.
TexAss, on 24 March 2014 - 01:29 AM, said:
if they are less than you (say 3 or 4), RUN OUT AND KILL EM. Close the distance, get really close and finish them.
Advantage in numbers is the only thing that counts in this game. You always will win with a bigger group.
Advantage in numbers is the only thing that counts in this game. You always will win with a bigger group.
Until you find three mechs holding there ground against your 7 while those 2-3 snipers focus you down, one after another. On top, if you push with more than half the team, prepare for incoming strikes.
This can work, right, but it is far away from the we-win-strategy. Actually this is one of the best showcases for high risk, high reward
#20
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 2,861 posts
Member
- LocationGermany
Posted 24 March 2014 - 01:42 AM
627, on 24 March 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:
Oh hell it will, more often than not.
Until you find three mechs holding there ground against your 7 while those 2-3 snipers focus you down, one after another. On top, if you push with more than half the team, prepare for incoming strikes.
This can work, right, but it is far away from the we-win-strategy. Actually this is one of the best showcases for high risk, high reward
There are maps where this will work all the time, since there is no chance to get help by the rest of the team. Terra therma is such an example, Crimson too and Tourmaline. If you find a smaller group on such maps they are dead before they can get you. Plus the faster you kill em the less they can spot for their long range mechs.
If you have good brawlers on your side the other mechs will fall quickly since good brawlers know where to attack the mechs.
It just takes courage, lots of it, which most dont have.
And even if it fails, you had a nice brawl, and didnt puss out behind walls for the most part of the game and trade boring long distance peek-a-boo shots.
Perhaps I should switch to kurita lol
Edited by TexAss, 24 March 2014 - 01:44 AM.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
