471 replies to this topic

[AlmightyAeng]

Eglar, on 22 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

And as unromantic is sounds I have yet to see a situation where I'd rather died to win a game than stayed alive to win a game.

Well yeah...but are there games that you'd have died to get a win, where staying alive meant you guys lost? Are the C-bills on a win bonus worth it for you?

[Eglar]

Ghost Badger, on 22 April 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

Well yeah...but are there games that you'd have died to get a win, where staying alive meant you guys lost? Are the C-bills on a win bonus worth it for you?

You mean you're the only one left and there are 8 enemies alive?
Kill them live and win. :-)

On a serious note: fight it out, try not to die, try to get kills.
Not really hard to understand am I?

Edited by Eglar, 22 April 2014 - 11:11 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Eglar, on 22 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

Like I said, try to do it without dying if your objective is just buying time there are many ways to realize it. I am pointing out false heroism that usually leads not only to you being dead but also your team losing. While you are correct about that deaths can not be avoided, trying not to die wether you're under fire or not generally makes you a better player.
And as unromantic is sounds I have yet to see a situation where I'd rather died to win a game than stayed alive to win a game.

Spoiler

see? I lived

Of course I do TRY to stay alive, but going in 4-6 on one staying alive is not Really plan A. More of... How many of you are going to hel with me!?!

I know many don't like talking about it but it has to be. Those willing to become soldiers are willing to put themselves in harms way, We Intend to come home alive, but go in knowing, 'Our Life expectancy in the sheeat is 2.3 seconds. We do all we can to avoid that, but that sacrifice was accepted going in.

From a gaming perspective... 35 years of gaming... The toon dying ain't a big deal if the results are positive. and 20 wins 8 losses is pretty good results. Would I rather have lived? Sure! Does it matter? No. My team won! I sacrifice "pets" in game all the time to win. So if i figure Its my time, I die trying! You don't get more competitive than that.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 22 April 2014 - 11:19 AM.

[Wolfways]

Adiuvo, on 22 April 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

What build is that?

All stock weapons. Also, any equipment it came with (not including Ferro)

[Bishop Steiner]

Eglar, on 22 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

And as unromantic is sounds I have yet to see a situation where I'd rather died to win a game than stayed alive to win a game.

so, particularly in the old assault model, you were never the closest to your home cap, and despite being banged to heck knew the only way to win was stop the cap, engage the enemy til reinforcements could arrive (even knowing you were probably gonna bite it in the attempt?)? I can't say I would PREFER to do this, but since it has often been the difference between a win and a loss, I preferred it to losing the match.

I know some folks poopoo that as a stretched outlier possibility, but I must be the king of outliers the number of times I faced that scenario.

[Adiuvo]

Wolfways, on 22 April 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

All stock weapons. Also, any equipment it came with (not including Ferro)

I wouldn't call many stock builds viable.

If you want to play them that's fine but at that point you're ceasing to try to play competitively, so this entire discussion doesn't really apply.

[Eglar]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

Which in and of itself kinda shows, it's the meat, and the coordination, more than the Meta(l). Meta enhances it, but is not mandatory.

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

I find it makes me a better player. I can default to the meta, rather easily. But I feel that after playing exclusively to it, it's harder to loosen up and go free for all.

I believe that we have different perceptions of the "Metagaming".
What metagaming is from my understanding the utilization of out-of-game information to affect in-game play in within the provided rule-set. People use the words like "abusive" or "boring" while carrying hard feelings towards metagaming. Taking a Meta-Build is what most people perceive as "Take a JJ Mech, Put in Ac5s. Put in PPCs". That's ok and you'd end up like


Apart from the usual assault-type meta-builds metagaming contains so many more facettes people don't even bother with mentioning or understanding.

Take Adivuo for instance: from what I know he almost exclusively pilots a Light Mech, he doesn't play ppc/ac5 builds, does he metagame? yes he does. Which includes knowledge about not officially documented game-mechanics (that includes smurfy) affecting how you build your mechs, weapon synergy, "why Medium Lasers are better than Small Pulse Lasers", map positioning, utilizing unbalanced map spawn points, tactical positioning, etc, etc..

When you talk about Meta you mainly refer to Meta-Builds and you wanting to pilot a "not-so-meta-build-which-you-find-fun" that's okay. You are essentially restraining yourself from taking certain weapons or mechs such as
"I don't want to use PPCs,"
"I want to play a Locust"
"I don't want to use Ballistics"
"I want to use LB10X".
Playing "fun-builds" does not exclude metagaming. For example
If you want to play a Locust, that's okay but I'd rather play it with 5 Mlas than with 5 Flamers. (This example should be pretty obvious) - At least try to min-max a disadvantageous mech chassis.

The same argument is valid for bringing a spotter into a Pug Match (or a 12-mens). Considering how situationally gimped LRM's are in first place plus evaluating how much you could contribute as a "TAG" spotter against how much you could contribute as a spotter without tag but more DPS. Metagamers usually opt for direct damage.

Spoiler

If people think that they can log onto someone's stream just to see who plays what mech so they can build the same mech having a blast while winning the game, they already fail at being a skilled player.

Edited by Eglar, 22 April 2014 - 12:35 PM.

[Eglar]

Wolfways, on 22 April 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

All stock weapons. Also, any equipment it came with (not including Ferro)

try the stock champion mechs, they are pretty good. )

[Dawnstealer]

Sarlic, on 18 April 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

To me he writes as a invidually, a player who only plays for a positive KDR. That is what it sounds to me. Apologies if i am wrong, but that is the image i am getting from him.

MWO is based on teamplay. Not a guy who aims for his KDR. If i need to sacrifice for the team with dealing as much as damage as possible. I will do it if we archieve victory. I remember a post from him saying like 'High KDR is a good player low KDR is a bad player' <---- This is not a fact at all and that does not mean anything in this game.

KDR is just a stat, a stat where some people are obsessed by it and should be removed. MWO is based on teamplay.

If i throw a bunch of guys each other who are focused on KDR the outcome would likeley a defeat. Why? Because they dont do teamwork.

Edit: or am i off the discussion?

This is how I am, too. I'm more concerned with my team winning. For this reason, I'm far more likely to be the door buster or the disruptive guy who starts the push that the enemy concentrates on while the team flows over and stomps them.

Sometimes I survive that, usually I don't. I'll usually get a kill or two playing that way - I'm a good shot - but my KDR isn't that impressive taken in a vacuum. If you consider the other things that go along with it? It paints a different picture.

[Bishop Steiner]

Eglar, on 22 April 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

stuff

Yes. I actually am aware of all that. But since the term "Meta" as used in this forum, has come to be used (albeit incorrectly) to represent abusive builds and designs due to game imbalance, that is the form to which I use it. When in Rome, and what not.

By the fullest definition, Meta is simply knowing all the mechanics and details of the game and it's inner workings and staying current on changes, so as to either avoid pitfalls, or game the system for maximum efficacy.

Meta as referred to in most game forums, and especially in MWO, is "Max DMG/Min Risk/Shallow Learning Curve" as that is the quickest most effective way to achieve, but not necessarily maximize, higher potential.

Hence the mediocre meta team has a leg up against the mediocre non meta team. In higher comp, THEN the nuances matter, and yet, oddly enough, those are rarely talked about, even by the top players, when referring to Meta, or giving advice.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 April 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[Wolfways]

Adiuvo, on 22 April 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

I wouldn't call many stock builds viable.

If you want to play them that's fine but at that point you're ceasing to try to play competitively, so this entire discussion doesn't really apply.

lol so if i'm not playing by the meta i'm not trying to win? Funny, i seem to do fine in them (except my 3L).

Eglar, on 22 April 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

try the stock champion mechs, they are pretty good. )

I don't consider champion mechs as stock.

Edited by Wolfways, 22 April 2014 - 12:53 PM.

[Adiuvo]

Wolfways, on 22 April 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

lol so if i'm not playing by the meta i'm not trying to win? Funny, i seem to do fine in them (except my 3L).


I don't consider champion mechs as stock.

You don't necessarily have to use a AC5/PPC mech to be considered as 'trying to win,' but if you're using some TT mech with single heatsinks? Yeah, there's a line crossed there.

Edited by Adiuvo, 22 April 2014 - 12:54 PM.

[Roland]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

Hence the mediocre meta team has a leg up against the mediocre non meta team. In higher comp, THEN the nuances matter, and yet, oddly enough, those are rarely talked about, even by the top players, when referring to Meta, or giving advice.

Most nuanced aspects of Mechwarrior are beyond the grasp of many players, who still struggle with the most basic aspects of the game.

For instance, if someone doesn't understand that the LBX is a bad weapon, then they really aren't at a level where they're ready to tackle more complex aspects of gameplay. It'd be like trying to explain chess to someone who struggles with the rules of checkers. You can't really appreciate the complex aspects of the game unless you have a firm grasp of the basics, because the basics provide the foundation for more complex things like maneuvering.

As an example, you can take something like the Marines' handbook on Manevuer Warfare, which provides some really awesome foundations for squad level tactics in Mechwarrior... but unless you really grasp the fundamentals of the game, and why some things work while others don't, then even having that document won't help you because you won't be able to apply the lessons it contains within the context of the game. Indeed, I've seen people make common mistakes stemming from incorrect application of certain real-world tactics, because they haven't adapted those concepts correctly to the differences between the real world and the game-world, which lead to certain critical differences.

[Eglar]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

Yes. I actually am aware of all that. But since the term "Meta" as used in this forum, has come to be used (albeit incorrectly) to represent abusive builds and designs due to game imbalance, that is the form to which I use it. When in Rome, and what not.

I am sorry if my post seemed to be like directed towards you especially - it wasn't. I was just saying how "player skill" can also be evaluated also based on the Mechs, Loadouts he fields and decisions he makes ingame, how this is all affected by the Metagame and why I still believe that KDR, while not accurate is an indicator for your "performance" (see how I didn't use the term skill?)

Edited by Eglar, 22 April 2014 - 12:58 PM.

[Adiuvo]

Roland, on 22 April 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

Indeed, I've seen people make common mistakes stemming from incorrect application of certain real-world tactics, because they haven't adapted those concepts correctly to the differences between the real world and the game-world, which lead to certain critical differences.

It's interesting how often this happens... there are quite a number of mil-based units in MWO and many of them try and adopt tanker strats which really don't translate well.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 22 April 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

For instance, if someone doesn't understand that the LBX is a bad weapon, then they really aren't at a level where they're ready to tackle more complex aspects of gameplay.

useful posts peppered with black and white agenda, gotta love ya for it. I might not think it is where it should be, but by any relevant (Above 1 KDr, per se?) measurement, if I can consistently feature it and get more kills than deaths, it can't, by your Meta arguments, actually be BAD. I accept it is not a +5 KDr "L33T" weapon, though.

Adiuvo, on 22 April 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

It's interesting how often this happens... there are quite a number of mil-based units in MWO and many of them try and adopt tanker strats which really don't translate well.

Squad Based Infantry would seem the more logical basis. At least that is what I have tried to pattern my tactics after, that and SWAT.

But many "Mil-Sim" Vets are not exactly combat vets. Many are, but from my own experiences in certain "Mil-Sim" Guilds and Clans..... nowhere near as many as they to be. Which is why I have seen several Mil-Sim units flat out fail to deliver. (Also being a good grunt doesn't guarantee being a good leader or strategist)

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 April 2014 - 01:03 PM.

[Roland]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

useful posts peppered with black and white agenda, gotta love ya for it. I might not think it is where it should be, but by any relevant (Above 1 KDr, per se?) measurement, if I can consistently feature it and get more kills than deaths, it can't, by your Meta arguments, actually be BAD. I accept it is not a +5 KDr "L33T" weapon, though.

Any objective measurement puts the LBX squarely in the trash-tier of weaponry currently. No matter how bad you, or even I, want it to be better.. it's just not. And pretending like it its good doesn't make it so. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

I would point out though that part of what you mentioned here is actually incorrect. Simply using a weapon and not encountering universally terrible results is in fact not proof of its effectiveness. I killed mechs using nothing but flares back in Mechwarrior 4.. but flares were not in fact useful weapons. Indeed, the developers didn't actually intend for them to ever be used in such a way at all.

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

Squad Based Infantry would seem the more logical basis. At least that is what I have tried to pattern my tactics after, that and SWAT.

But many "Mil-Sim" Vets are not exactly combat vets. Many are, but from my own experiences in certain "Mil-Sim" Guilds and Clans..... nowhere near as many as they claim to be.

Traditionally, Mechwarrior has been a combination of armor tactics mixed with infantry.. As I mentioned, a lot of the notions presented in the Marines' "Maneuver Warfare" doctrine is extremely applicable. Of course, it's generally applicable to most military engagements.

But being able to apply it takes a deep understanding of not only the doctrine, but of the environment in which it's being applied.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

(Also being a good grunt doesn't guarantee being a good leader or strategist)

Grunts lift. Grunts take and Grunts die. You are not a thinking man if you are enlisted infantry... (Unless you are Chesty Puller!). Honestly... who chooses to be shot at by someone else? Most of the Grunts in my Company signed up for other MOS and failed something in Boot. I didn't even pick Infantry as one of my MOS! But I ended up in one of the Corps most honored Infantry Units.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 22 April 2014 - 02:17 PM.

[Eglar]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 April 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

Of course I do TRY to stay alive, but going in 4-6 on one staying alive is not Really plan A. More of... How many of you are going to hel with me!?! I know many don't like talking about it but it has to be. Those willing to become soldiers are willing to put themselves in harms way, We Intend to come home alive, but go in knowing, 'Our Life expectancy in the sheeat is 2.3 seconds. We do all we can to avoid that, but that sacrifice was accepted going in. From a gaming perspective... 35 years of gaming... The toon dying ain't a big deal if the results are positive. and 20 wins 8 losses is pretty good results. Would I rather have lived? Sure! Does it matter? No. My team won! I sacrifice "pets" in game all the time to win. So if i figure Its my time, I die trying! You don't get more competitive than that.

That's actually what makes the difference. Even when facing 1vs6 I wouldn't go into the fight thinking that I already lost. I commit to the fight, because there is no other option left. The risks are really high and I usually die 99 out of 100 times (and yes I've won 1vs6s or even 1vs8s) If you can go in with a mindset focused on winning by getting Kills while not getting killed, you're on the best way of becoming a superb player.

Regardless of your role, your mech, your current situation not being killed should always be applied in my opinion.

Joseph Mallan, on 22 April 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

Glad the Jags still have him.

He laughed, said that you two go way back and than disconnected.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

one can only reply to the information given. If you don't want people filling in blanks, don't leave such glaring holes and omissions in your comments.

Forgive me those holes were meant so people would think and come up with conclusions that would challenge me, not make my eyeballs roll around.