98 replies to this topic

[STEF_]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 June 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

There is such a mindset, just because you've never encountered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The mindset boils down to trying to play it safe 100% of the time, which always results in stagnation and eventual decay.

Bishop Steiner, on 27 June 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

um. sorry to argue with you so succinctly, but you are every much wrong. You might not recognize such, but those who fight and play to not lose, are a very real thing, in war, sports, business, etc. You might have a different term for it in your neck of the woods, but it is indeed a very real thing, as Quicksilver just attested to.

A simpler way to describe it might be "persistent over-caution". Or "risk aversion". Over caution and risk aversion are sometimes essential when you are recouping, or even building up to an "offensive" (can't squander resources prematurely) but staying in a bunker mentality eternally get's you surrounded, cut off, and eventually, starved out.

Which are all just different ways to say "playing not to lose".

A lot of mid tier football clubs that's only real goal is to stay in the Premier League, but never win it, might be a good analogy. But retail products rarely develop the fan fervor FCs too.

Yep, it exists.
Can I at least write it's a wrong mindset. At least not my favor one.
I did enjoy very much Napoleon, back in my days.
Now translating this mindset in mwo, it's a real thing. It's what I observe each day: the team that attacks win, or best said, the team that has the initiative.

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 27 June 2016 - 01:51 PM.

[Jables McBarty]

I think the word we are looking for is not "direction" but "conviction."

It was my biggest complaint following minimapnarok. Not that the minimap was ****, but the complete about-face on Russ's part.

Pick a direction and commit to it. But plan long-term, so your customers at least get the sense that the changes today and the changes three-to-six months from now are building on each other, towards something.

Johnny Z, on 27 June 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

Aerotech should totally be a thing in this game.

But we do--it's called "Air Strike"

XD

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Stefka Kerensky, on 27 June 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Can I at least I write it's a wrong mindset. At least not my favor one.

It is a wrong mindset, no one is really disagreeing with that, stagnation (which is the result of playing it safe for too long) is bad for any changing or "evolving" environment.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 27 June 2016 - 01:11 PM.

[Maugged]

Stefka Kerensky, on 27 June 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Yep, it exists.
Can I at least I write it's a wrong mindset. At least not my favor one.
I did enjoy very much Napoleon, back in my days.
Now translating this mindset in mwo, it's a real thing. It's what I observe each day: the team that attacks win, or best said, the team that has the initiative.

https://en.wikipedia...ive_%28chess%29

[Bishop Steiner]

Stefka Kerensky, on 27 June 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Yep, it exists.
Can I at least I write it's a wrong mindset. At least not my favor one.
I did enjoy very much Napoleon, back in my days.
Now translating this mindset in mwo, it's a real thing. It's what I observe each day: the team that attacks win, or best said, the team that has the initiative.

not liking or agreeing with something is very different than denying it exists, my friend.

It is a bad and foolish mindset, hence my post about it. I don't like the mindset one bit, but it is a common trap people fall into, even those who think they "don't like it". See it even with people's personal budget and careers... too often afraid to fail to take the risk to get where they really want to be.

[InspectorG]

TheArisen, on 26 June 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

Bishop Steiner commented that PGI seems to not know what they really want MWO to be or they're not sticking to their decision.

So that presents the question, where should PGI take MWO?

For FW/CW whatevs, they should build a nice sandbox toolkit that lets players design their own campaigns. Give server space and planets based on popularity.

Unwashed plebs can have their own sandbox.

Casual-leets, their own.

Hardcore leets their own as well.

They implement rules and balance as they see fit. PGI supplies some Game Masters/DMs to handle contracts/allegiances between factions/units.

This way PGi idoesnt have to make FW into 'anything' but supply players with the means to build their own.

[Johnny Z]

Stefka Kerensky, on 27 June 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Yep, it exists.
Can I at least I write it's a wrong mindset. At least not my favor one.
I did enjoy very much Napoleon, back in my days.
Now translating this mindset in mwo, it's a real thing. It's what I observe each day: the team that attacks win, or best said, the team that has the initiative.

Napoleon clearly attributed his wins to having the man power to do so. As a guess he got a lot of that man power from Spain. Any other source for his wins cannot be copied or put into words. Although he did bring canned food into popular use to feed his army. Which maybe changed the world more than his military victories. Was also famous for use of air recon and specialized in knowledge of artillery and cannons. Although to this day generals study his tactics. Also Napoleon was much "Italian". Also he was fighting idiots, from his first victory to his last they always thought he was running away.

Edited by Johnny Z, 27 June 2016 - 01:40 PM.

[Jables McBarty]

InspectorG, on 27 June 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

For FW/CW whatevs, they should build a nice sandbox toolkit that lets players design their own campaigns. Give server space and planets based on popularity.

Unwashed plebs can have their own sandbox.

Casual-leets, their own.

Hardcore leets their own as well.

They implement rules and balance as they see fit. PGI supplies some Game Masters/DMs to handle contracts/allegiances between factions/units.

This way PGi idoesnt have to make FW into 'anything' but supply players with the means to build their own.

This...this is a great idea.

[WarHippy]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 June 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

um. sorry to argue with you so succinctly, but you are every much wrong. You might not recognize such, but those who fight and play to not lose, are a very real thing, in war, sports, business, etc. You might have a different term for it in your neck of the woods, but it is indeed a very real thing, as Quicksilver just attested to.

A simpler way to describe it might be "persistent over-caution". Or "risk aversion". Over caution and risk aversion are sometimes essential when you are recouping, or even building up to an "offensive" (can't squander resources prematurely) but staying in a bunker mentality eternally get's you surrounded, cut off, and eventually, starved out.

Which are all just different ways to say "playing not to lose".

A lot of mid tier football clubs that's only real goal is to stay in the Premier League, but never win it, might be a good analogy. But retail products rarely develop the fan fervor FCs too.

Tressel ball as us Ohioan's always called it. Get in the lead and then take your foot off their throat and play super conservatively resulting in final scores that were much closer than they ever had any right to be.

[Bishop Steiner]

Johnny Z, on 27 June 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

Napoleon clearly attributed his wins to having the man power to do so. As a guess he got a lot of that man power from Spain. Any other source for his wins cannot be copied or put into words. Although he did bring canned food into popular use to feed his army. Which maybe changed the world more than his military victories. Was also famous for use of air recon and specialized in knowledge of artillery and cannons. Although to this day generals study his tactics. Also Napoleon was much "Italian". Also he was fighting idiots, from his first victory to his last they always thought he was running away.

“Strategy is the art of making use of time and space.
I am less concerned about the latter than the former.
Space we can recover, lost time never.”

Guess which PGI has squandered, chasing it's tail, and shifting it's focus with every strong wind?

[Clownwarlord]

They should strive to be a better game.

[Bishop Steiner]

WarHippy, on 27 June 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

Tressel ball as us Ohioan's always called it. Get in the lead and then take your foot off their throat and play super conservatively resulting in final scores that were much closer than they ever had any right to be.

And also, generally losing when they played equal teams in the big game, like any SEC team. (and I dislike the SEC). In fact, if Miami had been near as good as people thought, I doubt OSU would have won that one, either. But at least OSU has always had the talent (if not always the depth) to cover for a number of sins... and in the Big 10, has played against pretty inferior competition quite a bit.

Even with OSU's talent level, how long would they have lasted as an SEC West team under Tressel? Gaming market is a heck of a lot more competitive IMO, than the Big 10 was during Tressel's tenure. (Now under Urban, I have to admit, they are an interesting team. Both to watch and from a results perspective)

[Bishop Steiner]

WarHippy, on 27 June 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

Tressel ball as us Ohioan's always called it. Get in the lead and then take your foot off their throat and play super conservatively resulting in final scores that were much closer than they ever had any right to be.

I was thinking that PGI's tenure more resembled the resurrected Browns, tbh. New QB every year, new Coach and front office every other year... and no success whatsoever because nothing even has a chance to start to grow before it get's wiped and started over, again.

Only with PGI it's Ideas. Start one, hit a little resistance, quit and go a different route. Look at the whole nonsense over InfoWar. YoYo buffs, nerfs and Metas.

Perpetually bad because of lack of direction, from the top down.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 27 June 2016 - 02:28 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 June 2016 - 01:44 PM, said:

“Strategy is the art of making use of time and space.
I am less concerned about the latter than the former.
Space we can recover, lost time never.”

Guess which PGI has squandered, chasing it's tail, and shifting it's focus with every strong wind?

Yep there are quite a few of those, giving advice. He put on his cannons in Latin "The Final Argument of Kings". But from memory the only time he actually said "I win because of" was how many men he was willing to use. This could be propaganda of the time, but it is said he was the first to ever use cannon on civilians, in France... He was undefeated for 12 years and changed the world a lot to put it mildly mostly with technology, but its not all good. The British had better rifles than Napoleon from my understanding. The Russians had winter... The Germans had been at all out war or skirmishing with the Ottoman Turks to one degree or another since the fall of Constantinople and had a lot to deal with when Napoleon came through.

Edited by Johnny Z, 27 June 2016 - 02:03 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Johnny Z, on 27 June 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

Yep there are quite a few of those, giving advice. He put on his cannons in Latin "The Final Argument of Kings". But from memory the only time he actually said "I win because of" was how many men he was willing to use. This could be propaganda of the time, but it is said he was the first to ever use cannon on civilians, in France... He was undefeated for 12 years and changed the world a lot to put it mildly mostly with technology, but its not all good. The British had better rifles than Napoleon from my understanding. The Russians had winter...

And the British even with Muskets, were better, faster shots, because the British were the only army that practiced regularly, with live ammo. Outside of Wellington, even the Brits overlooked the value of the rifle (something you'd think they'd be more cognizant of because of how effectively they were used against them in a little colonial tiff a few decades before), I believe Napoleon was cognizant of them, but felt as you said, that the Quantity of Quality method was sufficient. And since Rifles were slower, more expensive and demanded a lot more training, got ignored for Bigger columns of infantry and more cannon.

But showmanship, propaganda and such worked as much for Napoleon as actual military might, as when he fought a truly quality, proactive and forward thinking General, even one grossly outnumbered, be lost. Multiple times. The Spanish and Portuguese leadership simply had no spine and were cowed and intimidated as much as they were actually outfought.

Complacency, lack of merit and such made them ripe for the plunder...and until Wellington, Britain was set to follow suit.

[Johnny Z]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 June 2016 - 02:01 PM, said:

And the British even with Muskets, were better, faster shots, because the British were the only army that practiced regularly, with live ammo. Outside of Wellington, even the Brits overlooked the value of the rifle (something you'd think they'd be more cognizant of because of how effectively they were used against them in a little colonial tiff a few decades before), I believe Napoleon was cognizant of them, but felt as you said, that the Quantity of Quality method was sufficient. And since Rifles were slower, more expensive and demanded a lot more training, got ignored for Bigger columns of infantry and more cannon.

But showmanship, propaganda and such worked as much for Napoleon as actual military might, as when he fought a truly quality, proactive and forward thinking General, even one grossly outnumbered, be lost. Multiple times. The Spanish and Portuguese leadership simply had no spine and were cowed and intimidated as much as they were actually outfought.

Complacency, lack of merit and such made them ripe for the plunder...and until Wellington, Britain was set to follow suit.

Well Napoleon beat the British the first time, I think, because the Brits mistakenly thought Napoleons mostly peasant army was running away... Then Napoleon captured their guns and fired on their rear as they chased the feint. The British if memory serves were in the middle of a frozen lake when their own guns opened up on them.

Edited by Johnny Z, 27 June 2016 - 02:06 PM.

[Malleus011]

Sadly, I think MWO should charge hard for eSports and Solaris VII dueling arena.

At least a fragment of the competitive crowd is still here and still playing, and those who have left likely lack the bitterness of burned founders. If they quit, it was likely out of boredom, not disappointment.

They've squandered the goodwill of the Battletech fanbase, most of whom have left. If they turned hard towards lore, community warfare, and strategy, some would return, but most of them are gone and never coming back. That's the direction I'd rather they took, but at this point, that's probably a losing direction. They lost their window to be the next big Battletech/Mechwarrior franchise game.

They might still be able to salvage an action shooter, but that's it.

[Bishop Steiner]

Johnny Z, on 27 June 2016 - 02:05 PM, said:

Well Napoleon beat the British the first time, I think, because the Brits mistakenly thought Napoleons mostly peasant army was running away... Then Napoleon captured their guns and fired on their rear as they chased the feint.

Pretty sure Wellington was not the General in charge at the time. The defeat at the battle of Corunna was under the leadership of Sir John Moore, I believe. For Wellington, in 60 engagements, only 5 were defeats, and not once a truly important one.

He's considered a Defensive General, but most of his "defense" was actually dictating and setting the chessboard, and drawing Napoleon's generals into one trap after another, grinding the Grand Army to a nub.

Malleus011, on 27 June 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

Sadly, I think MWO should charge hard for eSports and Solaris VII dueling arena.

At least a fragment of the competitive crowd is still here and still playing, and those who have left likely lack the bitterness of burned founders. If they quit, it was likely out of boredom, not disappointment.

They've squandered the goodwill of the Battletech fanbase, most of whom have left. If they turned hard towards lore, community warfare, and strategy, some would return, but most of them are gone and never coming back. That's the direction I'd rather they took, but at this point, that's probably a losing direction. They lost their window to be the next big Battletech/Mechwarrior franchise game.

They might still be able to salvage an action shooter, but that's it.

While my heart yearns for an immersive SimLite or even SimUltralite.... I think you are correct. That is what PGI has leaned toward the most, what the current iteration is best suited toward. Short of wiping the board and reinventing the wheel, from aiming to heat to mechlab up, the SimLite dream is dead.

While i have no interest in the Solaris/ESport side, that is what it is best positioned to embrace. And if it finds actual success there, then perhaps it could build up resources enough for a PvE or other route later, when it's actually on firm footing.

My playtime is next to none, has been for the better part of a year, TBH... which ESports won't change. But really, what does it matter? MWO has already lost me, and those like me, for all intents and purposes.

I'm just biding my time for Battletech, and playing the occasional match here and there until then.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 27 June 2016 - 02:16 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 June 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

Pretty sure Wellington was not the General in charge at the time. The defeat at the battle of Corunna was under the leadership of Sir John Moore, I believe. For Wellington, in 60 engagements, only 5 were defeats, and not once a truly important one.

He's considered a Defensive General, but most of his "defense" was actually dictating and setting the chessboard, and drawing Napoleon's generals into one trap after another, grinding the Grand Army to a nub.




While my heart yearns for an immersive SimLite or even SimUltralite.... I think you are correct. That is what PGI has leaned toward the most, what the current iteration is best suited toward. Short of wiping the board and reinventing the wheel, from aiming to heat to mechlab up, the SimLite dream is dead.

While i have no interest in the Solaris/ESport side, that is what it is best positioned to embrace. And if it finds actual success there, then perhaps it could build up resources enough for a PvE or other route later, when it's actually on firm footing.

Again if memory serves, the largest pre nuclear explosion was in Spain at a main ammo supply fortress. So yes the Brits were winning a few, but Napoleon was still undefeated for so long he remains maybe the best general ever.

[Bishop Steiner]

Johnny Z, on 27 June 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

Again if memory serves, the largest pre nuclear explosion was in Spain at a main ammo supply fortress. So yes the Brits were winning a few, but Napoleon was still undefeated for so long he remains maybe the best general ever.

Siege of Almeida, 1810.

Under the stewardship of Brigadier General William Cox, and garrisoned by the Portuguese. Poorly thought out ammo magazine, one lucky French Shell... and on the wrong side of history you go. Still wasn't Wellington.