471 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Wolfways, on 21 April 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

So you don't want role warfare in the game? I mean if killing is the only thing that matters any other role is pointless right?

There is no role which is better served by having a negative K/D ratio.

I've already pointed this out. Even roles which do not heavily focus on killing mechs directly, should also not be DYING as frequently.

There is absolutely no situation where your role requires you to die more often then you kill other mechs. Scouts, assaults, firesupport... every single role on the field, when played competently, should have a positive K/D ratio. Even if you only get a kill once every 10 games, you should be dying even less than.

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

No you get dead doing those things so your team can still win.

No, you don't. Doing those things does not require you to die.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 21 April 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

There is no role which is better served by having a negative K/D ratio.

I've already pointed this out. Even roles which do not heavily focus on killing mechs directly, should also not be DYING as frequently.

There is absolutely no situation where your role requires you to die more often then you kill other mechs. Scouts, assaults, firesupport... every single role on the field, when played competently, should have a positive K/D ratio. Even if you only get a kill once every 10 games, you should be dying even less than.


No, you don't. Doing those things does not require you to die.

Doesn't require... No, like WILL. Know how many times I was given a order that would have likely lead to me being dead in training???

Advance on that hill.

Whats up their?

...A machine gun bunker!

F* that call in Arty!

Get up there!

Sacrificing a Knight that gains access to the opponents queen

Sacrifice bunt that scores a winning run.

You don't seem to look at the bigger picture Roland.

There is such a thing as losing a battle to win a war.

[Roughneck45]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Doesn't require... No, like WILL. Know how many times I was given a order that would have likely lead to me being dead in training???

Advance on that hill.

Whats up their?

...A machine gun bunker!

F* that call in Arty!

Get up there!

Sacrificing a Knight that gains access to the opponents queen

Sacrifice bunt that scores a winning run.

You don't seem to look at the bigger picture Roland.

There is such a thing as losing a battle to win a war.

It seems your commander does not know how to properly use his resources.

Sacrificing a mech for a push is rarely the best option, and even when it is that mech should be cycling to the back after the push so that they don't die after soaking damage. You can still push, tank, and lead your team to victory without going down.

This is MWO, not chess, there is almost always a better option than sacrificing yourself.

Edited by Roughneck45, 21 April 2014 - 07:40 AM.

[Wolfways]

Roland, on 21 April 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

There is no role which is better served by having a negative K/D ratio.

I've already pointed this out. Even roles which do not heavily focus on killing mechs directly, should also not be DYING as frequently.

There is absolutely no situation where your role requires you to die more often then you kill other mechs. Scouts, assaults, firesupport... every single role on the field, when played competently, should have a positive K/D ratio. Even if you only get a kill once every 10 games, you should be dying even less than.

If i'm in a "non-combat" build mech then my survival depends greatly on teammates. There is no escape. There is no surrender.
If i'm in a light mech i could run around until the timer runs out or on conquest i could survive until a resource win...if i'm lucky and the enemy don't have faster light mechs.
Your kill count and your death count depend not just on your abilities but also on your teams.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roughneck45, on 21 April 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

It seems your commander does not know how to properly use his resources.

Sacrificing a mech for a push is rarely the best option, and even when it is that mech should be cycling to the back after the push so that they don't die after soaking damage. You can still push, tank, and lead your team to victory without going down.

Wait... There are commanders in a PUG match??? Di I once say I had to die? I thought I said something to the effect that I chose to engage and accept the outcome. It seemed to cost me the KDR but increased the W/L on my Battlemaster.

[3rdworld]

A hurt mech can win a game, a dead mech does nothing.

Wolfways, on 21 April 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

So you don't want role warfare in the game? I mean if killing is the only thing that matters any other role is pointless right?

What a player wants in the game is not relevant to the discussion. In the game we have, there is only 1 role, killing other mechs.

Edited by 3rdworld, 21 April 2014 - 07:44 AM.

[Roughneck45]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

Wait... There are commanders in a PUG match??? Di I once say I had to die? I thought I said something to the effect that I chose to engage and accept the outcome. It seemed to cost me the KDR but increased the W/L on my Battlemaster.

Lol I was talking about the guy wanting you to jump in front of a machine gun bunker.

How many games played do you have in the battlemaster?

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 21 April 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

A hurt mech can win a game, a dead mech does nothing.



What a player wants in the game is not relevant to the discussion. In the game we have, there is only 1 role, killing other mechs.

Then there is two roles. Winning the match. Which is more important than just killing the enemy. My Battlemaster may lose the fight but it seems to win the war in equal and opposite proportion(20W/7L v 12K 23D). Now what will be telling is how many assists did I get aiding those victories!

[Roland]

People seem to just be trying to rationalize their deaths by imagining that their deaths were secretly the reason why their teams won games.

[Wolfways]

3rdworld, on 21 April 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

What a player wants in the game is not relevant to the discussion. In the game we have, there is only 1 role, killing other mechs.

Funny, i could have sworn that yesterday i helped my team win by reporting enemy positions, giving ECM cover when they were targeted by LRM's, and using TAG on the enemy.
I guess if i was irrelevant to the match people should stop complaining about tonnage differences between teams or DC's at the start of matches as it doesn't matter.

[3rdworld]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

Then there is two roles. Winning the match. Which is more important than just killing the enemy. My Battlemaster may lose the fight but it seems to win the war in equal and opposite proportion(20W/7L v 12K 23D). Now what will be telling is how many assists did I get aiding those victories!

Winning the match and killing enemy mechs are highly correlated

[Joseph Mallan]

Roughneck45, on 21 April 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Lol I was talking about the guy wanting you to jump in front of a machine gun bunker.

How many games played do you have in the battlemaster?

Assault a MG bunker... but pretty much the same thing

With the archived games 45 total, 28 since wipe.

[Appogee]

TheCaptainJZ, on 17 April 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

Is that PGI's official stance? That you can hide at the end of a match if you participated up to that point? Can someone spell out exactly what is allowed and what is not as many people have different views on the topic and no one is sure exactly where the line is? Or is there no clear line?

You are over-thinking it. Or deliberately trying to over-complicate it. Not sure which.

You can shut down and/or hide if that makes sense in the context of still actively trying to win the game. You can't shut down and hide if you're not trying to win the game... (for example, trying to preserve your meaningless k/d stat, or having a fit of pique because you felt your team doesn't deserve your further participation, or ... any of the other lame excuses regularly given.)

Man up, fight on, die proud. Occasionally it will lead to a glorious unexpected victory.

Edited by Appogee, 21 April 2014 - 07:54 AM.

[3rdworld]

Wolfways, on 21 April 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

Funny, i could have sworn that yesterday i helped my team win by reporting enemy positions, giving ECM cover when they were targeted by LRM's, and using TAG on the enemy.
I guess if i was irrelevant to the match people should stop complaining about tonnage differences between teams or DC's at the start of matches as it doesn't matter.

Did you deal no damage, or have zero kills?

Also what does tagg accomplish? Killing mechs. What is ECM used for? Making it more difficult for the enemy to kill you.

1 role to rule them all.

Edited by 3rdworld, 21 April 2014 - 07:55 AM.

[Wolfways]

Roland, on 21 April 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

People seem to just be trying to rationalize their deaths by imagining that their deaths were secretly the reason why their teams won games.

It's not about rationalizing anything. It's about why having a death count higher than a kill count doesn't mean you're not helping your team.

[Fut]

WarZ, on 17 April 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

I see you say absolutely nothing about the a** hat team mates who died at some point in the match, and because they arent interested in waiting the extra few minutes for the last couple living teammates to finish playing, they call out the grid coordinates of living players so the enemy can zero in on their positon in force and gank them.

Ummm.. The Mod didn't have to respond to that, because everybody should already know this is against the rules.
Simply screencap that shit, and send it into Support.

[Roughneck45]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

With the archived games 45 total, 28 since wipe.

Thats what I thought. Any win those few amount of games is going to push the ratio wayyy up, you simply don't have enough games played to show you how those pushes normally affect your W/L

Edited by Roughneck45, 21 April 2014 - 07:56 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 21 April 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

People seem to just be trying to rationalize their deaths by imagining that their deaths were secretly the reason why their teams won games.

Hardly the reason we won, but the sacrifice seems to put the lie to your position. I died 23 time in 28 games and we won 20 and lost 8. So seeing how many Assists I got would be a good indication of how much I am providing to those wins.

And no I am not one of those who runs in and hits an enemy with one laser and call that an Assist, That is pretty lame even to me.

3rdworld, on 21 April 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

Winning the match and killing enemy mechs are highly correlated

For the overall team effort yes.

[3rdworld]

Wolfways, on 21 April 2014 - 07:54 AM, said:

It's not about rationalizing anything. It's about why having a death count higher than a kill count doesn't mean you're not helping your team.

If your death count is higher than your kill count when 3/3 modes can be or have to be won by killing mechs, and some 90% (according to PGI) matches end in kills......

yes, it does mean you played poorly.

[Roland]

Quote

Hardly the reason we won, but the sacrifice seems to put the lie to your position. I died 23 time in 28 games and we won 20 and lost 8.

But you are assuming that your deaths somehow contributed to those wins, when there is no evidence of that.

Folks who know me know that I tend to play quite aggressively, so I know what it means to put your mech into dangerous situations... but part of being good means being able to get OUT of those situations as well.

There's literally no reason, ever, for you to die.

Now, back in MW4, there actually was utility in dying sometimes, due to splash damage... You could potentially do MORE good by dying in certain cases.

But in MWO? There's zero utility in dying. And it's a mistake to believe that certain beneficial actions require death to accomplish.