50 replies to this topic

[Ruar]

Looking for some help. I'm trying to figure out if it's worse to play hard charging with emphasis on moving up and taking the fight to the other team, or whether it's worse to sit back behind hills poking a few shots while ceding initiative.

Personally I think being timid is worse, but I see so many players who prefer to hide instead of fight so maybe they know something I don't.

Yes, I realize there is a time to trade and conserve armor... but at some point you either push or die. I'm talking about the times where I think it's a push or die moment and people don't push.

[Wil McCullough]

there's no right answer because it all depends on the map you're playing on, what your team is doing in general, what the opposing team is doing and the loadouts everyone is carrying.

in general, aggression wins games though.

[Deathlike]

Being timid is worse... because you have generally lost the game before you've really even started.

I'm not saying being overaggressive is bad, but that's when you need some level of intelligence to determine when to apply it.

[El Bandito]

I'd rather prefer if my teammates are alive and shooting, than Leeroying and dying 2 minutes into the match. Can't even take advantage of his push like that.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Part of the issue is identifying when folks are being timid, vice being cagey. Like Bandito said, there's no value in just rushing pell mell in most of the time. Aggressively pursuing position is really the key. Position creates overmatch, overmatch wins engagements, start the winning of engagements in this game and it becomes a death spiral your opponent doesn't recover from.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Lukoi Banacek, on 07 January 2017 - 07:52 PM, said:

Part of the issue is identifying when folks are being timid, vice being cagey. Like Bandito said, there's no value in just rushing pell mell in most of the time. Aggressively pursuing position is really the key. Position creates overmatch, overmatch wins engagements, start the winning of engagements in this game and it becomes a death spiral your opponent doesn't recover from.

Basically this is what you want to be achieving... the enemy suffering from CGL that they can not recover from. Being "Too Timid" is always going to be worse and overall the biggest problem you are going to run into in the QP queue... people not pushing a point, therefore the enemy gets the position, and the game is lost. Well over 90% of the games in the QP queue are won or lost before the first shot is even fired... we are essentially playing chess where the pieces shoot at each other, and those people hiding in the back are just giving away opening game & mid-game moves to the opposing team.

Focused and cooperative aggression wins... everyone pushing the same position & shooting the same Primary and/or Secondary target.

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 07 January 2017 - 08:15 PM.

[Mystere]

I find being aggressive is better than being timid. The former at worst lets you drop into a new fight earlier. The latter just prolongs the agony.

[DaZur]

There is ultimately a right time to do both...

That said, failure to recognize and or act upon that right moment is what separates good players from bad.

[Xmith]

Neither is good. What you want to do is find a balance between the two.

[JigglyMoobs]

I prefer aggressive teammates because then you can coordinate and move. Even If you lose, you lose having fun. If teammates are too timid, there's no moving them. The game is then just s**t.

[RestosIII]

Honestly, depends on the general attitude of your teammates. If your entire team is proactive, aggressive is good. If your team is generally a poking/mid-range team, then timid is better. But if I were to just assume we're talking about an average QP team, I'd have to go with... timid as the worst of the two. Overly aggressive players can surprise the enemy and make them panic, while a timid player is usually just being a ball and chain for the team.

[Davegt27]

depends on your bucket

if your in the right bucket all your weapons work and hardly nothing can kill you
you might as well charge

[Linkin]

So, as others have pointed out, I have to say both. But if I had to pick one, charging with no support is worse imho, you will probably die to quick to do much of anything. Now, if our mechs could go critical...

On the flip side, being to timid and not shooting anything is probably just as bad. So, there you have it, a non-decisive answer!

[Malcolm Vordermark]

I think hiding behind a rock the whole time is as bad as charging a firing line alone and getting yourself killed. Though, I would honestly rather someone hide. At least that way the score board isn't giving away the fact that one team essentially down a mech.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

Tbh I'd say being timid. At least if you're charging, your team gets free locks/spots or have a meatshield, giving you an opportunity to move up or an opening

[Valhallan]

Imo timid is ok, cowardly is not, for me the difference is that timid will not go first but they will always support, while cowards will camp in their spot not engaging even if their heat bar is empty and their allies are engaging nearby .

[PJohann]

El Bandito, on 07 January 2017 - 07:49 PM, said:

I'd rather prefer if my teammates are alive and shooting, than Leeroying and dying 2 minutes into the match. Can't even take advantage of his push like that.

I'd rather prefer Leeroying myself and dying 2 minutes into the match than watching 15 minutes of gauss/ppc pokefest.

[Appogee]

Both are bad.

Timid is worse.

If everyone charges, it can take the enemy by surprise and you can roll over them.

But more commonly, only one or two charge, get killed, and make the odds worse for their team.

[Dee Eight]

Timid is worse...unfortunately camping cowardice is the current meta in the QP buckets.

[Random Carnage]

You've essentially just defined whether it's worse to drop on the EU server or NA server respectively. Oz server doesn't count as the match is over before the ping figures out that the game started 10 minutes ago.