87 replies to this topic

[KHETTI]

Anyone who says "If your assault can't keep up, thats your problem", i don't want you on my team, that makes you a nascar specialist, problem is, even if i point out how detrimental your attitude and tactics are, you still won't get it, you never will.

Assaults are like tanks, they require infantry support to be fully effective, think of everything that's not an assault as infantry,.
If you aren't supporting your assaults , you are significantly reducing your chances of winning.

[DrxAbstract]

Why is it repeatedly claimed in this thread that being faster than, and not sticking with, your team's assaults automatically results in meeting the other team's assaults? How does that work, exactly? If you're speeding away from your team and are the first to encounter the other team, wouldnt you be encountering their faster, or otherwise non-assault mechs first? According to this backasswords logic assaults on either team would be the first opponents encountered every single time.

Brains r hard.

[SmoothCriminal]

DrxAbstract, on 09 March 2016 - 03:57 AM, said:

Why is it repeatedly claimed in this thread that being faster than, and not sticking with, your team's assaults automatically results in meeting the other team's assaults? How does that work, exactly? If you're speeding away from your team and are the first to encounter the other team, wouldnt you be encountering their faster, or otherwise non-assault mechs first? According to this backasswords logic assaults on either team would be the first opponents encountered every single time.

Brains r hard.

I see your point - this is on the assumption that the other team has deathballed up so your first contact would be their entire force. If they haven't then it isn't a given you would bump into their assassaults - though it is a risk.

Given that this game is all about out trading DPS, surely it is better to link up into a firing line (and therefore wait for your lumbering cousins)?

[Wintersdark]

jss78, on 09 March 2016 - 02:02 AM, said:

Nonsense. How exactly is it the fault of a 50 km/h mech if he gets left behind by mechs speeding away at 100 km/h? What's the Dire Wolf pilot supposed to do to prevent this? Change the laws of physics?
.

Funny story. I spent a LOT of time in my Direwolf, being an assault pilot.

You know what? I never get left behind. Not ever. You know why?

Because physics. Sure, I'm trying dling along at 53.5kph. But I'm moving long before many of those faster mechs have started, and I'm moving in the most efficient path to where my team is going. This works fine, on every map.

The worst case scenario is that I'm middle to rear of the pack and unable to shoot at anything at all for half the match (because if you turn and start firing at their sniper lights chasing your tail, you're doomed.). But then, you've got an intact DWF vs. Battered mechs later - always fun.

I've had fellow dwf's get left behind, ones who spawned right beside me. They did, because they wasted those critical first 10-15 seconds, or because they turned to fire, or because they moved towards friendly mechs initial position s not where they were going.

I've got some 500+ matches in my Prime DWF alone. I do t think ANY of those saw me left behind.

Yes, it's better to have your allies support the assault Lance. But this is Puglandia. If you want to survive and succeed in Puglandia, you need to do the right things yourself, and not rely on your team to choose to make the smarter choice.

KHETTI, on 09 March 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

Anyone who says "If your assault can't keep up, thats your problem", i don't want you on my team, that makes you a nascar specialist, problem is, even if i point out how detrimental your attitude and tactics are, you still won't get it, you never will.

Assaults are like tanks, they require infantry support to be fully effective, think of everything that's not an assault as infantry,.
If you aren't supporting your assaults , you are significantly reducing your chances of winning.

Truth. If you're not in an assault, support your assaults.

If you ARE in an Assault, though, DO YOUR PART. MOVE.

Don't expect your team to not be bad, and don't cry when the Puglandians do what Puglandians do. Plan for it, and if they decide to have an outbreak of good sense, then bask in the warm glow.

[Jeffrey Wilder]

Mole, on 08 March 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

So I was just in a match today where my team, once again, left our assaults behind to die. Our Dire Wolf complained about it, and some guy legit told him to "bring something faster or shut it", that it "wasn't our fault he brought a slow mech and got caught out" and then, when challenged, issued his response: "check score" as if him having a good score in his Warhammer made his point less stupid somehow. What is wrong with people?

Check score? I always frown when I see 1K and 1 kill only.

Probably an LRM boat or a very bad aim.

Ironically, my score is constantly 300+ with 3 kills, that's a good score.

[STEF_]

Mole, on 08 March 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

So I was just in a match today where my team, once again, left our assaults behind to die. Our Dire Wolf complained about it, and some guy legit told him to "bring something faster or shut it", that it "wasn't our fault he brought a slow mech and got caught out" and then, when challenged, issued his response: "check score" as if him having a good score in his Warhammer made his point less stupid somehow. What is wrong with people?

Actually I'm really tempted to report them for "favoring enemy team".
Because leaving slow assaults to get rekt IS favoring the enemy.

[Kyynele]

KHETTI, on 09 March 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

If you aren't supporting your assaults , you are significantly reducing your chances of winning.

You're talking like there's a way to know if the random pug in an assault mech is worth supporting.

For my experience, if you're likely the only one in your team who has any idea how to play the game, the best chances to win are to kill the enemy mechs faster than your team dies. Supporting players who can't carry their own weight usually just leaves you in a disadvantageous position where you can't turn the tide of the match.

I personally rather win a match and get called an idiot than lose a match so that some bad players don't get really low scores and don't have to feel bad about themselves.

Jeffrey Wilder, on 09 March 2016 - 04:52 AM, said:

Check score? I always frown when I see 1K and 1 kill only.

I remember clearly a match in which I did 900+ damage in a SPL ACH and got 0 kills. Nobody else in my team had over 450 damage. I opened up almost all of the enemies, and every time someone else just happened to get the killshot when my lasers were on the cooldown. There's so much luck involved in killshots that they're basically insignificant, and unless the damage is clearly inflated by LRMs or even Streaks, high damage and low kills isn't a sign of bad play. Whereas low damage and high kills is only a sure sign of playing well in the lower tiers where everyone doesn't automatically shield and roll the damage around their mechs before you can get the kill.

You might be even right in whatever tier you play, just pointing out that the numbers have vastly different meanings based on how they're dealt and who you're playing against.

[CDLord HHGD]

I can sympathize with the assault when the game drops your lance the farthest away and the tendency on the map is to NASCAR away from you.

It isn't slow mechs or NASCAR, it's the stupidity of PGI for separating all the lances and spreading them across the map at drop.

[Malachy Karrde]

Kyynele, on 09 March 2016 - 05:08 AM, said:

You're talking like there's a way to know if the random pug in an assault mech is worth supporting.

For my experience, if you're likely the only one in your team who has any idea how to play the game, the best chances to win are to kill the enemy mechs faster than your team dies. Supporting players who can't carry their own weight usually just leaves you in a disadvantageous position where you can't turn the tide of the match.

I personally rather win a match and get called an idiot than lose a match so that some bad players don't get really low scores and don't have to feel bad about themselves.



I remember clearly a match in which I did 900+ damage in a SPL ACH and got 0 kills. Nobody else in my team had over 450 damage. I opened up almost all of the enemies, and every time someone else just happened to get the killshot when my lasers were on the cooldown. There's so much luck involved in killshots that they're basically insignificant, and unless the damage is clearly inflated by LRMs or even Streaks, high damage and low kills isn't a sign of bad play. Whereas low damage and high kills is only a sure sign of playing well in the lower tiers where everyone doesn't automatically shield and roll the damage around their mechs before you can get the kill.

You might be even right in whatever tier you play, just pointing out that the numbers have vastly different meanings based on how they're dealt and who you're playing against.

High damage is never a sign of bad play, even in lrm boats. If some lrm boat does 1100 damage and has only a couple kills, everyone else should be thanking them because the rest of the team got 1 hit kill shots and many of the enemy had no armor when the rest of the team got to them. I played a 4x lrm 10 Warhawk with 5 mpls. You know what? I had 1400 damage, 3 kills and 2 kmdd. That's 200 more damage than I get with my dire wolf but about the same kill count. I think I'm done listening to the anti lrm crowd. You can't have it both ways.

[Zerberus]

cdlord, on 09 March 2016 - 05:32 AM, said:

I can sympathize with the assault when the game drops your lance the farthest away and the tendency on the map is to NASCAR away from you.

It isn't slow mechs or NASCAR, it's the stupidity of PGI for separating all the lances and spreading them across the map at drop.

I think that would be more the collective stupidity of the community, the vocal majority of which harped and harped and harped for dynamic spawn points, basically exactly as currently implemented. The sentiment was very specifically "All mechs spawning at the same spot chreates chaos, confusion, stale repetitive gameplay, and also promotes TA (that part I NEVER understood at all, the only thing that promotes TA is ******** that TA intentionally, but some people are a special kind of stupid and will use any irrelevant argument they can imagine to make their point.), so just spread them out and randomize them", once again not thinking through what they were asking for to it´s logical end.

Many of us stated that this would be the obvious result while the discussion was still going on, but as usual those that actually knew what they were talking about were dismissed by the Cryhards as either having no clue or simply being obstructionist, so they just whined even louder and more incessantly.

See also "Turrets in Assault Mode", "5 minute cap timers in conquest", and "Hiding last mechs will never EVER be an issue in skirmish because Skill^Tm" for further examples of PGI caving to whining instead of reason and everyone then complaining about EXACTLY what those of us with working brains said would happen actually happening.

I personally would much prefer people not constantly proving me right and instead having a game that the Cryhard community doesn´t try to break completely every 6 months.

Edited by Zerberus, 09 March 2016 - 06:05 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Zerberus, on 09 March 2016 - 05:54 AM, said:

I think that would be more the collective stupidity of the community, the vocal majority of which harped and harped and harped for dynamic spawn points, basically exactly as currently implemented, once again not thinking through what they were asking for to it´s logical end.

Many of us stated that this would be the obvious result while the discussion was still going on, but as usual those that actually knew what they were talking about were dismissed by the Cryhards as either having no clue or simply being obstructionist, so they just whined even louder and more incessantly.

See also "Turrets in Assault Mode", "5 minute cap timers in conquest", and "Hiding last mechs will never EVER be an issue in skirmish because Skill^Tm" for further examples of PGI caving to whining instead of reason and everyone then complaining about EXACTLY what those of us with working brains said would happen actually happening.

I personally would much prefer people not constantly proving me right and instead having a game that the Cryhard community doesn´t try to break completely every 6 months.

If spreading the drop points is PGI's definition of "Dynamic" I think we hit on a root cause of many of our problems.

I have Spoken for dynamic drop points before, but I defined it as all three lances dropping at any one Conquest capture point location. It's not OUR fault. Maybe we should have included a definition of "Dynamic"......

[Curccu]

Malachy Karrde, on 09 March 2016 - 05:43 AM, said:

High damage is never a sign of bad play, even in lrm boats. If some lrm boat does 1100 damage and has only a couple kills, everyone else should be thanking them because the rest of the team got 1 hit kill shots and many of the enemy had no armor when the rest of the team got to them.

Everyone else should not thank them, they most likely were the reason that LRM boat got locks and they paid with their armor/uavs/etc.

Malachy Karrde, on 09 March 2016 - 05:43 AM, said:

I played a 4x lrm 10 Warhawk with 5 mpls. You know what? I had 1400 damage, 3 kills and 2 kmdd. That's 200 more damage than I get with my dire wolf but about the same kill count. I think I'm done listening to the anti lrm crowd. You can't have it both ways.

It just most likely means you are bad shot and thats why you like LRMs.

[Zerberus]

cdlord, on 09 March 2016 - 06:05 AM, said:

If spreading the drop points is PGI's definition of "Dynamic" I think we hit on a root cause of many of our problems.

I have Spoken for dynamic drop points before, but I defined it as all three lances dropping at any one Conquest capture point location. It's not OUR fault. Maybe we should have included a definition of "Dynamic"......

Yep, or specifically defined it as "NOT random and as a group" (which is, ironically, exactly what it was before), as opposed to the complete randomness and lance splitting people very specifically whined for

It wasn´t PGIs definition, it was "ours", they did exactly what "we" (Or rather the vocal minority) would not stop asking for, exactly the way "we" asked for it, becasue any deviation from exactly their half-baked subreddit fueled idea was "entirely unacceptable and game-breaking, completely against the spirit of the change"... this is what usually happens when communties get called on for game design, it becomes Amateur Hour at the Apollo, and usually not with good amateurs, but with total hacks that have never developed a game in their lives but still think they´re the gods of game design.

For the most part I feel that listening to the Cryhard community during the end of open beta and the first 6 months of release was the biggest mistake PGI ever made...and we´re still shoveling the **** it caused out 2 years later.

Edited by Zerberus, 09 March 2016 - 06:17 AM.

[Dread Render]

Tristan Winter, on 08 March 2016 - 06:33 PM, said:

This is why I want winning the match to play a greater role in determining income, match score, XP and PSR rating.

There is a Major flaw in your thinking... The MM can not tell the difference between the two kinds of people.
Its a 50% 50% chance you get a good team. So No. until they can fix the MM Winning should have No count at all in your rating.

[Bilbo]

Gamuray, on 08 March 2016 - 07:45 PM, said:

Frozen City Night - Skirmish.

Assault Lance pit spawn. Rushed down by enemy lance every time. Assaults have to either engage and hope to be supported by a fast team and maybe not die, or take a super long detour and let their other friendlies die.

Are you done now SIR'S?

I've pretty much decided the super long detour is always the best option. The support almost never gets there.

[Zerberus]

Render, on 09 March 2016 - 06:23 AM, said:

There is a Major flaw in your thinking... The MM can not tell the difference between the two kinds of people.
Its a 50% 50% chance you get a good team. So No. until they can fix the MM Winning should have No count at all in your rating.

^^ The point is that "fixing " the MM is basically impossible when you have half the community that refuses to comprehend any game mode other than skirmish and half the community that want´s variety.

THe first half will always derpfail to the middle of the map, and the other half will always try to actually win.

You cannot balance or effectively mate that until people finally get on the same page about what each gamemode means. And as long as "Hulk smash mechs" is a viable winning strategy in every ******* mode, that will never, ever happen and every mode they ever create will eventually devolve into skirmish with 2-3 players actually playing the game as intended.

Until peopla understand the gamemodes (instead of whining when they lose because somebody did and they just didn´t do jack **** about it, see also "Capping on assault"), you cannot properly matchmake... You can`t mix NFL with NBA teams and expect everyone to be playing the same game if there is no hard condition to be met for a win.

And that´s why I still feel skirmish should be it´s own special sandbox, far away from those of of us that want more than just Quake with mechs.

Edited by Zerberus, 09 March 2016 - 06:38 AM.

[Ghogiel]

DrxAbstract, on 09 March 2016 - 03:57 AM, said:

Why is it repeatedly claimed in this thread that being faster than, and not sticking with, your team's assaults automatically results in meeting the other team's assaults? How does that work, exactly? If you're speeding away from your team and are the first to encounter the other team, wouldnt you be encountering their faster, or otherwise non-assault mechs first? According to this backasswords logic assaults on either team would be the first opponents encountered every single time.

Brains r hard.

I'll just draw you a picture lol



The spawns at the end of the arrows are the assaults.

Edited by Ghogiel, 09 March 2016 - 07:21 AM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

As a light jockey I make a point of first figuring out where the enemies are, calling it out on VOIP and then racing back to cover any assaults that are looking vulnerable. A good group of lights can stay out a decent dire wolf's firing arc indefinitely. Those same lights can't do that if there's even a single enemy light harassing them.

[SteelBruiser]

Awesome advice, next time bring a faster mech. Yup if you want to be part of the team bring a faster mech...we don't have time for you if you don't. Now I wonder what would actually happen to that old Match Maker if everyone followed the above advice and showed up only with lights and mediums. How long would it take to actually get a match going? Anyway, I've run in each of the weight classes and I do not adhere or agree to the above drivel. I beleive in real Team work concept this game is based upon. I'll stay back to support the big guys if no one else will. I may run ahead a bit to see what's going on but I'll swing back around to check on their progress. On several occasions I and the big guys have been lucky enough to take out some pesky lights who thought they happened upon an easy target. I love moments like that. And I really don't mind the NASCAR nuggets racing ahead to glory. I'm fine with that. That means when us slowpokes get there with all of our fire power and fresh, heavy armor, we should be more than capable to clean up the damaged goods. And when were done we'll be more than happy to give you a salute as we recycle the scraps of your mech. I have no problem profiting from other's selfishness and arrogance...I really don't. But the real reward to me has nothing to do with damage points, kills or C-bills, it is when another pilot says thank you. There is no reward greater than the appreciation of a fellow team mate. But that's just me I guess...and I'll be happy with that to.

Edited by SteelBruiser, 09 March 2016 - 08:36 AM.

[Tristan Winter]

Render, on 09 March 2016 - 06:23 AM, said:

There is a Major flaw in your thinking... The MM can not tell the difference between the two kinds of people.
Its a 50% 50% chance you get a good team. So No. until they can fix the MM Winning should have No count at all in your rating.

That strikes me as a very weak argument indeed, but I have a feeling we're not going to come to an agreement, so I'll leave it there.