373 replies to this topic

[Dracol]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

[/size]
And yet, you are trying to take this to a silly degree, where you then have that kind of insight into RANDOM players.. indeed, even into BAD players, such that (despite never having seen them before) you are somehow predicting that they will take the wrong action, and thus are able to adjust your own actions to account for that? No dude, you aren't doing that. Because that's ridiculous.

Examples of determining what a random player on my team with no comms will do:

-If at the very start of the match, a random player looks around at his lance mates and waits for them to move... this player is a follower. Good chance they might follow me if I push

-A light pilot goes running straight into the enemy near the start of the game and starts harrassing the enemy team... this player is not a spotter but a harasser. Small chance they'll sucker someone back to our main force

-A light pilot runs to the edges, occasional tagged targets will appear and disappear near the start of the game.... this player is a long range spotter. Good chance mid game good locks can be achieved

-Atlas in front takes a few rounds of AC/2 from 1k and backs up ASAP.... this player is damage adverse and can not be relied on to hold the line

In essence Roland, the ability to understand human behavior can go a long way to working with pugs. Considering your conversation within this thread, I'm guess you're not the best at understanding human behavior.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

[/size]
I claim that your decision did not have an impact on the outcome in that situation, but rather, it was the decision of the spotter... and you had no way of predicting what he was going to do in that case.



I'm claiming that it's not a skill because NO ONE HAS IT.
You do not have magic psychic powers that allow you to predict the actions of others... because, if you did, then you would be far better served using those magical skills to predict the actions OF YOUR ENEMY, and thus guaranteeing your team victory in every game.

But you don't have that ability... Just like no one else has it.



Psychically predicting that a random pug is going to keep his lock on one target rather than changing it is not a skill. It's a fantasy that you apparently believe in.


Certainly what you are attempting to argue is most certainly not a "skill" that you have.. You aren't able to predict the actions of random pugs on your team.


What makes you think that I "refuse to accept other game styles"? Because I don't believe in your silly arguments about made up "skills"?



On some level, what I think you are trying to talk about, is the ability to predict your teammates movements and operate in a coordinated fashion with them... And as I already explained, THIS is certainly a skill. It's achieved through practicing with those players, and understanding how they play. Having done exactly this myself, I can most definitely attest to its existence. I fully understand how that works.

And yet, you are trying to take this to a silly degree, where you then have that kind of insight into RANDOM players.. indeed, even into BAD players, such that (despite never having seen them before) you are somehow predicting that they will take the wrong action, and thus are able to adjust your own actions to account for that? No dude, you aren't doing that. Because that's ridiculous.

And finally, as I explained.. the ability to predict to some lesser degree what other players will do (especially coordinated teammates) is something which has nothing to do with LRM's.. It's merely a GENERAL skill that all pilots have. So even there, it doesn't really support your position anyway.

I regularly predict moves on the road during my commute by random drivers.

How? Simple. People are not as unique, nor their actions as varied as our egos make us want to believe. People, in general fall into patterns, and from there, those patterns form groups. It's how Criminal Profiling works. Taking a complete stranger and building a profile of their action, and likely future actions based off of known principles.

It's not 100%. But it lays a basis. Yes, obviously, familiarity increases the predictability index. But Just as by watching for various tells and quirks can tell me when some dillweed is going to pull over into my lane at the last second, without a blinker, so too, can an observant person be able to predict broad strokes of a PUG.

No one is saying we can predict exactly when PUG A is going to drop a target lock. We are saying that usually within a few minutes, you can tell if you are inclined to trust PUG A to maintain a target lock to begin with. And then decide if you are going to launch from there. (Also even PUG matches, I see many many names over and over, and their behavior gets catalogued, to some degree). THAT is the skill, when it comes to spotters and observers you are not in Voice Comms with.

Again, stop twisting things to absurd levels to try to prove or disprove things.

[Roland]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 April 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

I regularly predict moves on the road during my commute by random drivers.

How? Simple. People are not as unique, nor their actions as varied as our egos make us want to believe. People, in general fall into patterns, and from there, those patterns form groups. It's how Criminal Profiling works. Taking a complete stranger and building a profile of their action, and likely future actions based off of known principles.

Of course dude.. As I pointed out, this kind of prediction affects all elements of play, regardless of what role you are in.

But if you are driving down the road, and someone just swerves out of their lane and hits you, that's not a failure of YOUR skill as a driver, right? You aren't less skilled as a driver because you didn't predict their totally irrational action, right?

And yet that's what Roadkill suggested.

Quote

No one is saying we can predict exactly when PUG A is going to drop a target lock. We are saying that usually within a few minutes, you can tell if you are inclined to trust PUG A to maintain a target lock to begin with.

1) Within a few minutes, the match is over.
2) In many situations, when firing indirectly, you can't even tell which PUG has the lock, if multiple mechs are in that location.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

Of course dude.. As I pointed out, this kind of prediction affects all elements of play, regardless of what role you are in.

But if you are driving down the road, and someone just swerves out of their lane and hits you, that's not a failure of YOUR skill as a driver, right? You aren't less skilled as a driver because you didn't predict their totally irrational action, right?

And yet that's what Roadkill suggested.




1) Within a few minutes, the match is over.
2) In many situations, when firing indirectly, you can't even tell which PUG has the lock, if multiple mechs are in that location.

I generally keep track of who is where through regular use of A) the Minimap and the Q button. More so if I am in a support role. Also use the Command Map frequently. As a general rule, if I see someone running all over creation on the minimap, I don't trust this lock. (and one can tell sightlines in many cases from the minimap.

And you must be getting a lot of PUGstomps in if all your matches are over in a matter of minutes. I would hazard a good half of mine last over 10 minutes. A lot more fun when they do, toO!

I do feel you are overstating the point Roadkill is trying to make, or maybe my reading comprehension has gone down. Point is, within reason one can predict what one's PUGs are likely to do, in matches that last more than about 2 minutes (and even in less since if they are over that fast either we got aggressive and rolled the other guy, or we got timid and got rolled. In which case the behavior was pretty easy to predict, just sayin!)

And while I get your point about the random swerve, knowing that is an option, and adapting your driving accordingly, is a skill all it's own, In basic parlance, it is called Defensive Driving. When you work in certain realms of Auto Use, we actually are trained in Offensive Driving techniques, where you use your own driving to induce behavior patterns in other drivers, like that slow guy in the fast lane. 90% of people will get uncomfortable and pull out of your way if you ride close to their bumper and over onto the left shoulder a bit. Works even better at night with headlights.

You can read, and affect players similarly in Games, though just like IRL, it is by no means 10%. But it IS still a very real skill.

[Roland]

Go back and look at exactly what I said and roadkills response. Hr suggested that if a spotter make a mistake, it is the shooters fault, which is an absurd claim. And that's why I'm not the only one pointing out its absurdity.

It would be like blaming you for a drunk driver swerving into you, because you should have predicted it.

[Asmudius Heng]

Quibbling on the edges of an interesting discussion on what skill is guys ... seriously there is more common ground between everyone here than there is any differences.

No one is saying that trying to predict behaviours is not a skill - NO ONE is saying that.

This is a side argument to a single poorly worded line on an edge case scenario ... i was kind of interested in a discussion about what pertains to skill and game design having low entry level weapons and th scaling of effectivness of weapons and learning curves etc

Now its just silly with people arguing when mostly we agree - its argument for the sake of argument now

[Roadkill]

Asmudius Heng, on 03 April 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

The way you phrased it was that knowing the DECISION of the spotter (which may have or have not been in his control also) was a skill.

Knowing? I didn't say knowing was a skill. I said predicting was a skill.

Quote

You are making extreme claims to try to prove a point and I was calling you on it.

I do not agree that claiming the ability to predict the actions of others is a skill is in any way extreme. In fact, I believe you'll find it is widely accepted to be a skill.

Quote

I am agreeing with you yet you are trying to win this margin point instead of say that perhaps the way you phrased something was going to a certain extreme.

Your first response to me was with post #200, and in the quote you included in your post I clearly refer to predicting the actions of others, not knowing them.

Quote

Making the best guesses based of the information you have is a skill ...

Then we are in agreement. That's all I've said. I looked back and I don't see where you think I said that knowing the actions of others in advance is a skill... I never said that.

Quote

but you said if you miss because the spotter lost a lock that is YOUR FAULT due to lack of skill.

This is false, it is no ones fault often, the spotter may have had good reason to stop spotting or an enemy may have stopped that for him. Your individual skill at the point of launching in a perfect situation and the subsequent loss of lock because of something out of your control is not a reflection of your skill as you have stated it.

Everyone deserves a trophy, eh?

It's always someone's fault. It may be understandable, but someone is responsible. Someone is at fault.

It may be unreasonable to expect you to predict that your teammate is going to break your lock in this specific case, but you still failed to predict it. You weren't sufficiently skilled at predicting your teammate's actions in that specific instant, so you failed to make the correct decision to not fire your LRMs.

Quote

Taking a random shot on a spotted enemy without any thought to see if it is a good choice, that is a lack of skill yes.

To me that's the same thing. It's a lower skill version of the above. Which is to say, it takes less skill to realize that the random shot is a bad idea than it takes to realize that the spotter just might break lock if you fire right now. But both are examples of the same skill.

Quote

I am AGREEING with you for the most part but that one statement that someone elses actions is a relfection of personal skill the situation that Roland was describing was pushing the limits.

Except that I never said that. I said that being unable to predict someone else's action is a reflection of (lack of) personal skill. Based on what you're saying, I think you generally agree with that statement.

I suspect you simply misread or misinterpreted something earlier.

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

Go back and look at exactly what I said and roadkills response. Hr suggested that if a spotter make a mistake, it is the shooters fault, which is an absurd claim. And that's why I'm not the only one pointing out its absurdity.

It would be like blaming you for a drunk driver swerving into you, because you should have predicted it.

No, I did not. YOU go back and re-read what we both said.

I was very clear that the shooter's failure was in not predicting that the spotter would break lock. You're the one who misread it and assumed I was faulting the shooter for the spotter's action.

And yes, my experience driving a car says that in most accidents, the person who gets hit is at least partially at fault. Not in a legal sense, but in some arbitrary assignment of responsibility sense.

We can all be more observant and more attentive while driving. If you were paying closer attention, isn't there some chance that you could have predicted that random driver's swerve based on clues you'd picked up? Like, maybe, that he was texting on his cell phone? Or that he looked like he was falling asleep? Or that he looked drunk? Or that there was a small animal on the side of the road that might jump out in front of him?

Legally, sure, it's the swerving driver's fault. But if you were a more skilled driver, you might have been able to avoid the accident or at least mitigate it.

[Roland]

You are being totally irrational now.

Not everything is predictable, dude.

If you walk out your front door tomorrow and a meteorite falls out of the sky and kills you, it wasn't because you lacked "skill" in your ability to predict meteorites falling out of the sky.

If some teammate randomly drops a target lock, that isn't an indication of a lack of skill on the part of the shooter, because there is nothing that could have been interpreted to predict that action on the part of the spotter.

It isn't the case that you can never make any predictions. But a failure to predict totally irrational behavior is not an indication of a lack of skill, because no skill results in the ability to make such a prediction. Such a prediction would just be a matter of luck in that case.

[Roadkill]

Roland, I assume you're referring to my post #197?

Asmudius, that's clearly the post you are referring to, as that's when you first responded.

If not, please refer to the post with which you disagree. Because in post #197, I clearly said:

Quote

You failed to predict that your spotter was going to drop the lock you needed - your skill was insufficient.

I think that very clearly refers to your skill at predicting what your teammates are going to do, not knowing what they're going to do.

[Asmudius Heng]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

I suspect you simply misread or misinterpreted something earlier.

You are getting very defensive when this is an argument mostly about the use of language now.

Since you are intent on driving this argument to the point of absurdity now without taking any responsibility for how you worded your own arguments i will exit the conversation, it no longer holds any interest or relevance.

Roland just stated it very well above ... if you think it is possible you can predict anything just by the application of "Skill" then you cannot be argued with on this matter.

Again - we actually agree on like 99% of this but your bloody minded obsession now with holding this one minor point in your favour is making you look quite defensive.

[Roland]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

No, I did not. YOU go back and re-read what we both said.

I was very clear that the shooter's failure was in not predicting that the spotter would break lock. You're the one who misread it and assumed I was faulting the shooter for the spotter's action.

We really wanna do this? Ok.

You said:

Quote

You failed to predict that your spotter was going to drop the lock you needed - your skill was insufficient.

You are saying that the shooter's "skill" is somehow at fault, because he wasn't able to magically predict a random, irrational action on the part of a spotter.

So, if you were driving down the street, predicting that other drivers would generally be driving reasonably, and then some drunk driver who was driving beside you just randomly swerved into you for no reason... that it would be an indication that you had insufficient driving skill, because you didn't predict that he would do that.

Despite the fact that you have no reason to make such a prediction.

That's just not a rational position to take, dude.

There is no "skill" involved in such predictions of irrational, random actions. If you correctly predict such a thing, then by its nature it's just a matter of luck and chance.

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

You are being totally irrational now.

Nah, I'd say you are.

Quote

Not everything is predictable, dude.

If you walk out your front door tomorrow and a meteorite falls out of the sky and kills you, it wasn't because you lacked "skill" in your ability to predict meteorites falling out of the sky.

Now who's stretching?

Quote

If some teammate randomly drops a target lock, that isn't an indication of a lack of skill on the part of the shooter, because there is nothing that could have been interpreted to predict that action on the part of the spotter.

It isn't the case that you can never make any predictions. But a failure to predict totally irrational behavior is not an indication of a lack of skill, because no skill results in the ability to make such a prediction. Such a prediction would just be a matter of luck in that case.

Ah, so now it's random and totally irrational? Because when you started the example, the spotter had reasons, some of which were at least potentially predictable.

You're tilting at windmills, dude.

[Roadkill]

Asmudius Heng, on 03 April 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

Again - we actually agree on like 99% of this but your bloody minded obsession now with holding this one minor point in your favour is making you look quite defensive.

I'd be perfectly willing to change my mind if either of you - because there are only two of you - could explain what, exactly, you disagree with that I actually said.

I'm only being defensive because it appears to me that you're disagreeing with something that I didn't say, so I can't figure out why you're arguing with me.

Roland's now attempting to use reduction ad absurdum and bringing meteorites into the discussion. O.o

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

So, if you were driving down the street, predicting that other drivers would generally be driving reasonably, and then some drunk driver who was driving beside you just randomly swerved into you for no reason... that it would be an indication that you had insufficient driving skill, because you didn't predict that he would do that.

Nope, I would not say that I had insufficient driving skill. You said nothing at all about my driving skill.

I would say that I was insufficiently observant - and observation is a skill - because I failed to notice that the guy driving next to me was drunk. Had I noticed that he was drunk, perhaps I might have changed my prediction that he was going to continue driving normally, no?

Maybe he was only slightly drunk, so it was unreasonable to expect me to be able to notice (high skill threshold needed). Or maybe he was falling-down drunk, swerving back and forth, and I somehow failed to notice his erratic behavior (very low skill threshold needed). But either way, I still failed to notice that he was a drunk driver. I was insufficiently skilled.

[Roland]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 05:06 PM, said:

Nah, I'd say you are.

Well, at this point I'm not the only one pointing out you're being irrational here.

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 05:06 PM, said:

Ah, so now it's random and totally irrational? Because when you started the example, the spotter had reasons, some of which were at least potentially predictable.

The exact description of the scenario I gave:

Quote

For instance, imagine that you are in a situation where a spotter has a perfect lock on a target... Clear LOS, the target has no cover within range of his movement. No ECM bubbles in range. Perfect situation. You fire your LRM's.

Then the spotter switches targets... Because... reasons. He sees some other target and wants to check its armor levels.. He doesn't realize that he's holding a lock for you. He breaks the lock. The target moves slightly, and your LRM's hit the dirt.

There's nothing in that situation which would suggest he's going to just change targets... He's not being fired on. He's got a clear line of sight.. It's a perfect situation. Firing your missiles in that situation is the right thing to do.

He changes targets, not because of some in game action being taken by your enemies, or actions taken by your team. He just says, "Hey, I wonder what that other guy's armor is!" and flips targets.

There's no way for you to predict that. There's nothing in the game situation which indicates he's gonna do that. Hell, from your perspective, you don't even necessarilly KNOW that there's another target there for him to switch to.

That's not something which you can predict, man. And failing to predict the unpredictable is not a failure on your part. It does not demonstrate a lack of skill.

[Asmudius Heng]

OK last post because i just realised i have a PERFECT example of this.

The other night i was on river city with a dual gauss Jager. A raven with an ERPPC was across the water moving between building taking pot shots at me and spotting for an LRM boat.

I was missing a heap on the little ****** as he was moving well knoing qwhen to hide and when to hold locks.

I was in a bad position split form my team and made the decision to cross some open space to get into better cover and rejoin the team. I know i was going to take some fire doing this but staying was going to be worse.

The Raven saw this, shot me and held a lock - missiles incoming and a lot of them.

I twisted, lined up a shot on the raven who was moving near a low building. I charged up and fired, a difficult shot to be sure but i hoped to at leats hit one of his torsos before i sent defensive and continued to cover.

BOOM headshot.

Missile lock lost, the missiles flew over my head.

---

Now. Those LRM boats had every right to expect to get a hit there based on past actions of both the raven and myself.

I did not apply any special skill in this instance i was not aiming for the head.

A lucky shot by me saved me from taking quite a bit of LRM damage.

The skill of the LRM boats were never in question in this scenario, there was not fault of skill form the LRM users in any way whatsoever - there was no way to predict at all that that raven would lose lock so suddenly - hell they were probably on teamspeak co-ordinating.

This is what we are arguing about ... not a general sense of best decisions made ... you have stated in a rather absolute manner that all lost locks are a matter of skill of the LRM firer when the actions of others that are impossible for you to predict can effect the outcome.

On an overall level yes, the skill of the LRM user is there in decision what to shoot at and many failed hits can be thier fault for making a poor decision ... but the way you stated it was that it was always a matter of skill - to repeat what you said:

"You failed to predict that your spotter was going to drop the lock you needed - your skill was insufficient."

No. The skill of the LRM boats firing at me was not unsufficient in any way whatsoever ... even if i MEANT to get a headshot thier skill would still not be in question.

[Roland]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

Nope, I would not say that I had insufficient driving skill. You said nothing at all about my driving skill.

I would say that I was insufficiently observant - and observation is a skill - because I failed to notice that the guy driving next to me was drunk. Had I noticed that he was drunk, perhaps I might have changed my prediction that he was going to continue driving normally, no?

Maybe he didn't have any obvious signs of being drunk.

Or even better, maybe he wasn't drunk at all. Maybe he just had a stroke, and spazzed out and slammed into you.

Your predictive "skill" isn't lacking in that case, right? You don't lack skill for failing to predict that he was going to have a stroke and suddenly slam his car into you from the side, right?

[Vandruis]

Have you guys tried using LRM's in a competitive set up with proper screen and good cover.

LRM's in coordination will SHRED another team.

At my ELO as well, a 4 man LRM/spotter team will slaughter pugs consistently.

[Dracol]

Vandruis, on 03 April 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

Have you guys tried using LRM's in a competitive set up with proper screen and good cover.

LRM's in coordination will SHRED another team.

At my ELO as well, a 4 man LRM/spotter team will slaughter pugs consistently.

I have seen this in action. When the pugs are in more direct fire / brawl set-up, a coordinated LRM lance with dedicated spotter can effectively soften up and keep pinned down the enemy. When the pugs are mostly LRM boats, the dedicated 4 man LRM lance effectiveness seems to diminish.