465 replies to this topic

[Jaroth Corbett]

Tesunie, on 09 August 2017 - 07:41 AM, said:

Yeah. Sure. It still happens, but my POINT IS that it was made MORE DIFFICULT to do. No longer can a team push the Omega and kill it in a single wave of Light Mechs.

And my point is it is still a viable tactic to ensure victory so people STILL DO IT. Just like when you win the first engagement & wipe the first 12 mechs from the enemy you go to their spawn to do as much damage to the mechs that are being deployed, before they can get organized. Their 2nd waves mechs are destroyed of so badly damaged that when your side gets their fresh 2nd wave mechs it is a quick fight. Still going to be viable 2 minutes, 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks or 2 months from the time I make this post.

Quote

If your opponent is of a choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

Sun Tzu - The Art of War

but if that is too real world for you how about from the BT/MW universe itself ,

Quote

2. Offensive. When given the chance, attack and remain on the offensive for as long as possible. The enemy is weakest when backing up, and so are you.

-From "A Primer to Tactics and Strategy": 34th Edition, edited by General Aleksandr Kerensky, SLDF Press, 2742

[James Argent]

Yeah, that's not at all what I said nor what I was talking about. I was talking about the lights being ACTUAL fourth wave mechs (because the first three are already gone in a spawncamping situation) and him complaining about them acting like they should while he's still in a mech that can't hunt them easily. As he said, the spawncamping could end up costing his team the game, and I just somehow can't feel all that bad about it because 'it's a legitimate tactic' and 'it's allowed by the game.' If a team is so much better than the camped team they should have no problems (literally) covering all the bases.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

James Argent, on 09 August 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

Yeah, that's not at all what I said nor what I was talking about. I was talking about the lights being ACTUAL fourth wave mechs (because the first three are already gone in a spawncamping situation) and him complaining about them acting like they should while he's still in a mech that can't hunt them easily. As he said, the spawncamping could end up costing his team the game, and I just somehow can't feel all that bad about it because 'it's a legitimate tactic' and 'it's allowed by the game.' If a team is so much better than the camped team they should have no problems (literally) covering all the bases.

Ok....didn't quite get that...my bad

[Commander A9]

This is still going on?

[Mycroft000]

For everyone who has complained about lights running away and hiding, you can't call spawn camping a legitimate tactic, and evasion(assuming they're not powering down for the remainder of the match) an illegitimate tactic.

For those who don't understand that games can and should evolve when a particular tactic becomes unhealthy to the game need to look at examples like Magic the Gathering. It is a game that has inexplicably thrived despite being a massive money pit because the developers practice good game design. They alter the most current "mode" of the game every few months by releasing new components to the game. In the most "advanced mode" sanctioned form of the game, they have restrictions on many parts of the game that eliminate certain paths to victory,

If a game is going to have true longevity, it needs to be constantly examined to make sure that all involved are able to enjoy themselves.

Trying to stand on the argument that this is "war" is inherently flawed as well. If that were truly the case then the code of conduct would need to be altered to allow for delaying tactics. Sacrificing oneself to slow down a more powerful force in war and allow other forces to achieve victory elsewhere is considered valiant and worthy of awards like the Congressional Medal of Honor. I don't condone the tactic, but if you claim spawn camping is completely okay because it "allows everyone to move on to the next match" while also claiming that keeping KCom in a match and delaying them from achieving another victory(which would help your allies in other matches tilt the tug of war in their favor) then you're being disingenuous both with yourself and with everyone else.

Per the code of conduct, you are allowed to power down if you have no weapons and have superior numbers and are trying to secure a victory by getting killed.

Am I obligated to power up and let the enemy kill me in a situation where:

I have no weapons
My team had superior numbers when I powered down
I am unable to see the kill counts while powered down and am unsure of the status of the match
The enemy team ends up securing the kills required to end the match

Technically the answer is yes. Why is the answer yes? It's because delaying is considered an abuse of a game mechanic and as such something that detracts from the fun of the rest of the players involved with the match.

That is why there are those of us who want a solution to spawn camping. Not because we're all scared of getting killed, we're not, I die in 3 or 4 mechs in nearly every match I drop in. We want a solution because the solution would add more fun and strategic depth to the game, not less.

If you truly believe that any match that ends in spawn camping was decided early on, and are confident that you would win without spawn camping then you should do so in the spirit of sportsmanship. If on the other hand you think that giving the enemy even the slightest chance of a comeback is completely and in all ways unacceptable, then you didn't play enough little league as a kid(at least little league of my era, we did keep score) because you weren't taught to be a good winner, or a good loser.

[Lovas]

Mycroft000, on 09 August 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

If you truly believe that any match that ends in spawn camping was decided early on, and are confident that you would win without spawn camping then you should do so in the spirit of sportsmanship. If on the other hand you think that giving the enemy even the slightest chance of a comeback is completely and in all ways unacceptable, then you didn't play enough little league as a kid(at least little league of my era, we did keep score) because you weren't taught to be a good winner, or a good loser.

This is a funny analogy, but it is completely wrong.

If we were all 9 years old and this game was catered to youngins than maybe your analogy would be appropriate, but it isn't. You don't see the big boys in baseball give an inch to their opponent; they aim to beat the other players as badly as they can (including giving them some 95mph chin music to mess with their head). You don't see the grown men playing pro hockey pull their punches while checking or fighting, they aim to hurt the other guy and score as many goals as they possibly can. Shake hands after the game, that is sportsmanship (well, that and no cheap shots etc etc etc). Sportsmanship is not pulling your punches - that is just rude and insulting.

The fault is all on PGI and their game designs. You can't get mad at the players who play the game the way it was made, that is just immature. You can get mad that PGI hasn't bothered to try and figure out a way to safely get reinforcements to the fight. A lot of the issues are how the objectives are met. Attackers do not go in and try to hold key terrain or equipment - they are sent in to blow them up (e.g. bases, orbital gauss cannon's). That prevents the other side from gathering their reinforcements to do a proper counter attack because they have to hurry back most of the time if they try to save the ogens (as an example).

TLDR - getting mad at players for spawn camping is childish and a failure to objectively analyze the problem. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Edited by Lovas, 09 August 2017 - 03:13 PM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Mycroft000, on 09 August 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

For everyone who has complained about lights running away and hiding, you can't call spawn camping a legitimate tactic, and evasion(assuming they're not powering down for the remainder of the match) an illegitimate tactic.

Has anyone complained about lights running away, but who are looking to re-engage, pick off one of our weak mechs, etc? I think most players don't have a problem with that.

[Pat Kell]

Grus, on 09 August 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:

I'll be clear, I wasn't u seing the team as a meat shield. I just was able to live and deal damage and get some of you to turn around in the "why is shooting me" cause a few of you to get killed from back shots. And again 700 damage in a light is nothing to shake a stick at. 2nd drop was a pull / cut off drop witch worked... kinda. Reduced and almost killed a warhammer to combat ineffective and pulled 2 more pilots from the dz to help the odds, 3 and 4 were the damage drops but the rest couldn't hold long enough for it to be effective.

So question, do you think after the slaughter of the first wave I should have ejected in my light and stoped in the assault or continued to do damage?

Edit boss came in had to post*

To be clear to everyone this was a PUG match and I was flying solo. Late night and most of the clan wasn't online.

Marquis said it very well and I thank him for that. The issues isn't that you were able to do 700 damage in one light mech while two waves of your teammates died, it's that while 2 waves of your friends died, you didn't do all you could do in order to help them do a little better. You sat on the edge of the engagement and pecked away at us while we barreled into your teammates. If you would of been in a much heavier mech and standing toe to toe with your teammates, you could of done 3-400 damage AND allowed your teammates to do maybe another 100 pts of damage each. This occurs because as a light on the edge of the engagement, we often times will just strafe you with lasers to get you to go away and then immediately refocus on your team. If you would of been in that scorch, right up front, we would of needed to spend much more attention to you right off the bat which would of allowed some, if not all of the rest of your teammates live longer. I may be being too harsh when I call people who do this armor farmers as I think they honestly believe they are doing the right thing for their team but I am telling you right now that they are not. They are allowing us to focus on fewer mechs at a time. Marquis is right, lights in the first wave are the absolute lowest priority and I have put standing orders out there not to even call them out if they are behind us. Whoever is in the back is supposed to just turn around and either kill them or chase them off and resume the push.


Lights can be effective only if the enemy allows themselves to squirrel after them or if they sacrifice themselves for their team by being an enormous distraction. I actively work to prevent this so when you are in your light, sitting on the edge of the engagement, we are actively ignoring you. The best thing you could of done was charge right into the middle of us and try to get as many of us as possible to shoot at you and either miss or hit each other. Yes, you will die and you will likely die doing very little recorded damage. But think of what you can accomplish. You can get the enemy team to shoot themselves. You can get 6+ mechs shooting at you, raising their heat status and making it more difficult for them to fight the heavier mechs that are nearby and you can disrupt an enemy death ball if things go really well. Each one of these things can absolutely tip the balance of a fight to your favor, provided your team takes advantage of it. It's difficult to do when your team is not communicating but it can still be done. Just sit back and watch and as soon as they brawl is about to commence, just dive in man. If the timing is right, it can throw off the whole engagement, too soon and you die quick, too late and everyone just ignores you till the end. Practice doing it and you will start to get a good sense of when you should just dive in. The key here is to stop thinking about what is going to allow you to do better and start thinking about what you can do that will help your team do better.

Also...Patricia...really?

Edited by Pat Kell, 09 August 2017 - 04:30 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

Pat Kell, on 09 August 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

Also...Patricia...really?

I was waiting for that.

[Lovas]

Pat Kell, on 09 August 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

Also...Patricia...really?

Grus thinks he is one of the big boys.

[Tesunie]

Leggin Ho, on 09 August 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

And I can see this being abused by that last few pilots dropping in lights and running around the other team or just running and hiding for 10 mins after the winning team has pushed out to actually play this game and have to waste time trying to chase the lights down or worse they make it around in Assault mode and camp the base with cap accelerator on their mechs, Seen in happen in drops where they don't get moved to a different spawn already so no thanks to making it easier to exploit that idea.

As it stands either team can push out kill whatever wave is there and push into the spawn, they are already fighting a dropship that does full damage and does not miss (Head shot lately anyone) to push the advantage they have won for themselves by actually playing as a team, why should they be handicapped by a system in the game to reward the team that's losing the game at that point anyway?

It isn't abuse, as it can already be done with a lot of effort and attention from a commander (or someone who has "taken command"). All it would be doing is making it more accessible and less distracting to do for a single player (because few people actually want to take the time and effort to do this, if they are even aware that a single spawn is being camped by the enemy).

Think of it this way as well, it would also prevent any successful attempts to camp their own spawn, as if they do so their dropships will most likely be moving to a less hot/contested drop zone. So it can't actively be abused as a defensive mechanic to gain an advantage over the opposing team. (Unlike a lot of other suggestions, such as no/low rewards for damage/kills done within a spawn, or mega turrets...)

As far as some lights pushing past a team because "they dropped in a less contested drop zone", either you should have that drop zone covered, or maybe you should be back protecting your mission objectives. Not to mention, again, it can already be done by an observant commander simply by rotating out people from one lance to another as they die/respawn. Automating it a little would simply remove the need of a single person to take the command option and do it. (Which, I might mention, someone can troll a team by taking said command with the purpose of preventing lance swapping. We have people who shoot their VIP in escort, others who attack teammates intentionally, some that hide shut down on the map as the last mech in Skirmish... I'm certain someone would do so in FP if they really wanted to just to hinder their team.)

For the record, you do realize I'm talking about the same drop zones we currently have, just which one people will drop into when respawning will change based upon enemy movements, always dropping in the least opposed/most safe drop zone. Of course, a single dropship per zone in game at a time. This would mean that if enough of the team is respawning to take up three dropships, than people would still be spawning in all three locations at once. It wouldn't actually change much, besides make camping a single drop zone (for either side) less effective.

Marquis De Lafayette, on 09 August 2017 - 11:55 AM, said:

Point is: There is a reason conventional wisdom in this game is dropping heaviest to lightest....it's not to make lights fight like heavies...it's in part to keep the greatest number of your biggest firepower mechs alive the longest to gain the advantage.

FW players who don't get this, still have too much solo-queue mentality in them. I.e....what's good for your playstyle might mess your teammates over and you will lose matches because of it. The sooner newer FW players realize this the better we all are in dropping with them and even against them (better matches).

At one point, it was drop fastest to slowest (lightest to heaviest)... but then again that was back in the light mech gen rush wave days...

I'll also comment, as far as myself goes... I don't use "conventional" drop decks. I know there can be an advantage of maxing your tonnage, but I have come to just start taking four medium mechs. Even my teammates support this drop deck (for me), and they normally are "bring the tonnage" kind of people.

That drop deck selection didn't come by accident. I have tried the more traditional heavy loaded drop decks. After dealing only about 1000 damage matches, I started to bring in just four Medium mechs. Lets just say, I now see vastly increased damage scores for myself on average, with upwards of close to 2000 damage on my better matches, and a minimum of 1250ish as a typical ball park. I took the increase in my damage to be a positive notation, as well as what appeared to be an increase in numbers of wins. (No, I was not the last one alive most times. Just FYI.)

Basically, I'm just saying that sometimes, non-conventional works. Maybe not in the situation you are remarking about, but with the right pilot with the right skills and the right team... Sometimes it isn't all about tonnage. (Though, staying with your teammates and sharing armor, completely agreed.)

Jaroth Corbett, on 09 August 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

And my point is it is still a viable tactic to ensure victory so people STILL DO IT. Just like when you win the first engagement & wipe the first 12 mechs from the enemy you go to their spawn to do as much damage to the mechs that are being deployed, before they can get organized. Their 2nd waves mechs are destroyed of so badly damaged that when your side gets their fresh 2nd wave mechs it is a quick fight. Still going to be viable 2 minutes, 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks or 2 months from the time I make this post.



Sun Tzu - The Art of War

but if that is too real world for you how about from the BT/MW universe itself ,



-From "A Primer to Tactics and Strategy": 34th Edition, edited by General Aleksandr Kerensky, SLDF Press, 2742

Still. This game is not "war". It is a game. Yes, it has some war like aspects, and many teachings of war are applicable, but there are also aspects that do not apply.

When you die in this game, no one holds a funeral for you.
You can not (or rather, it really isn't good to) go to someone's house and beat them up to "attack them when least expected" (though that would be highly unexpected).
Just like a sport; such as football, hockey, soccer; this is a game. There are certain rules and expected conduct for it. There is such a thing as sportsmanship, which is something you continue to seem to neglect. Otherwise, hiding with a light mech when there is no chance of winning by combat (and I'll specify skirmish as it is most annoying there) would technically fall under "conserving your resources". However, in this game, you can't conserve your resources by hiding and letting the timer run down. Hence, it is against the expected conduct. (But that would also be a part of war.)


Now, as I said before, I do not like spawn camping personally, and thus will try not to do it myself. I know how it feels when it is done to me, so I don't like to do it to others. I'd also rather face them when they are at least a little coordinated. Now, as I also said previously, I do not blame other people/teams if they do perform this tactic. It is their choice and if they wish to pursue it for it's tactical advantage, I can not blame them. It is currently permit-able within the game, and it does have tactical uses.


So, if you really wish, we could continue to discuss aspects of war, and how they do and don't relate to this specific game... You'll find it strange how much of "war" is not here. If it was war, than why do we go through so much effort to try and balance the game? Oh wait... I mean "balance the war" maybe?

Marquis De Lafayette, on 09 August 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

Has anyone complained about lights running away, but who are looking to re-engage, pick off one of our weak mechs, etc? I think most players don't have a problem with that.

Refer to one of the quotes above. He seemed to have a problem with a light possibly not spawning in a drop zone where his forces are holding, and then getting the objective because they didn't spawn camp the guy. (At least, how it reads. I'm sure it wasn't how he intended for it to sound.)

[Mycroft000]

Lovas, if you think I'm mad about it, you haven't read the whole thread.

I've heard my 14 year old nephew use more intelligent dialogue than I've seen from some adults in their 30s-50s who play this game, I have no problem equating people like that to little league kids who haven't learned good sportsmanship.

Hockey, the very first penalty listed on the summary of official hockey penalties: Unsportsmanlike conduct, then there's Unnecessary Roughness further down the list; Checking from behind(do you really want to equate mechwarrior to hockey and say we can't shoot each other in the back?); kicking isn't allowed; do I need to continue?

Besides that equating faction play to pro sports is also a false equivalency, that's what the new Comp mode tab is for.

At the very least you've acknowledged that spawn camping is a failure of design,

Not only that, I have made the statement numerous times that "In the absence of PGI's willingness or ability" that I clearly consider this PGI's fault. The one and only request I've made of the spawn campers(specifically to Pat, but will extend this to everyone knowing they'll ignore it): Don't spawn camp PUGS. If units want to spawn camp each other, that's entirely acceptable. I have only called for a cessation of spawn camping pugs for the health of the game mode.

Equating my arguments for a change to be made(preferably by PGI, but in their absence of action, an effort from the player base to conduct themselves with good sportsmanship), to me(or anyone who would like to deter spawn camping) being mad and therefore childish is not speaking to the merits of our arguments.


Edit:

Tesunie, how dare you beat me to the sportsmanship comment, I demand you go back and delay your post so that when I forgot to click post earlier it still counts first!(they want childish don't they?)

Edited by Mycroft000, 09 August 2017 - 06:12 PM.

[Natural Predator]

How about everybody quits crying like social justice warriors beta males and get on the game and start playing.

[Mycroft000]

One other note, on the equating of this game to war:

https://en.wikipedia...eva_Conventions

An argument could be made that any pilot who is not able to shoot back is technically not participating in the hostilities.

[Carl Vickers]

Mycroft000, on 09 August 2017 - 06:16 PM, said:

One other note, on the equating of this game to war:

https://en.wikipedia...eva_Conventions

An argument could be made that any pilot who is not able to shoot back is technically not participating in the hostilities.

He is in a drop ship shooting me, I am shooting the drop ship, he gets hit, too bad.

I would also counter with, he is in a drop ship that is shooting combatants making the drop ship and whats in it a combatant. Just wanted to point that out.

[Mycroft000]

Carl Vickers, on 09 August 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

He is in a drop ship shooting me, I am shooting the drop ship, he gets hit, too bad.

I would also counter with, he is in a drop ship that is shooting combatants making the drop ship and whats in it a combatant. Just wanted to point that out.

I didn't say a solid argument. I was just trying to illustrate that comparing a video game to a true war is a little over the top. A better comparison would be to say this is an electronic version of the War Games that military organizations conduct on a regular basis.

[Pat Kell]

Mycroft000, on 09 August 2017 - 06:10 PM, said:

Not only that, I have made the statement numerous times that "In the absence of PGI's willingness or ability" that I clearly consider this PGI's fault. The one and only request I've made of the spawn campers(specifically to Pat, but will extend this to everyone knowing they'll ignore it): Don't spawn camp PUGS. If units want to spawn camp each other, that's entirely acceptable. I have only called for a cessation of spawn camping pugs for the health of the game mode.

Equating my arguments for a change to be made(preferably by PGI, but in their absence of action, an effort from the player base to conduct themselves with good sportsmanship), to me(or anyone who would like to deter spawn camping) being mad and therefore childish is not speaking to the merits of our arguments.

And just in case it wasn't clear, I steadfastly rejected that request because of the mindset that I believe it fosters. I believe that people are responsible for themselves and need to take actions to get the things that they want (in this case, good fun matches and feeling like you're improving are just some of the things people are looking for.) I believe that if I was to hold back when fighting an enemy, I would be depriving myself and my teammates of some of the things that we strive for when playing this game and I feel like we would be insulting the enemy team in a huge way. If I was playing a match and the enemy team was stomping the crap out of me, I would take it as an enormous insult if the enemy suddenly pulled back, told us we could regroup and make another go of it. I don't find that to be good sportsmanship, I find that to be condescending and arrogant. I am always worried about missing something in a match that will cost us the match so I am always actively searching for the enemy and trying to make sure that we don't screw up and give them the ability to turn things around on us. Someone thinking that they can just back off, give us a breather and get regrouped is essentially saying that they either A don't care about winning or B don't think that we have any chance at all of winning the match. I don't much care for either thought process and would never treat anyone in that manner.

As far as being responsible for yourself and taking actions to get the things that you want for yourself out of this game, I feel like I have been more than generous in sharing my experiences and opinions on how to be more successful in this mode. If being willing to share what we do with others so that they too can begin to do better isn't a show of sportsmanship, then I guess I 'm not a good sportsman. In the end though, win or lose, if you fight us, we are going to do everything we can to win as handily as we can. I am just simply not willing to risk losing a match by holding back on our aggressiveness. Practice makes perfect and while we are certainly not perfect, I am not going to broaden that gap by asking people to hold back when we don't feel like we are at risk of losing. Making it a habit to play all matches with the same intensity is what is going to help you win those close matches against good teams. If you don't, you will find critical moments in those tough fights where you needed to be doing something but were being lax on your pushes because you wanted to farm more damage or you were unsure if people were going to push with you because when fighting pugs, they were pushing with you so why would they now. That intensity must be maintained as much as possible through every match if you want to win as much as possible. This is why I do this and will continue to do this as long as it's not a violation of the CoC and it continues to help us win matches. If it ever becomes a violation of the CoC, we will simply strive to find another way of playing that will help us win. We certainly won't ask other people to change their playstyle and we are not going to look to PGI to fix it for us. Sure, they may fix it eventually but in the mean time, we are going to be actively searching for ways to fix it ourselves.

Also, on a side note, I really think that if we were to sit back from the enemy spawn point, let a group of Pugs group up and have another go at it, I truly believe that we would be ending matches 48-6 or worse. By actively fighting pugs in their dropzone, we are allowing the enemy dropships to shoot the crap out of us and kill us. This in turn gives these pugs more assists, hence more c-bills. Heck there are times when the enemy dropship will do 90+% of the damage to my CT and an enemy mech will come in and finish me off, earning them even more c-bills. To some degree, I would say that we are being kinder to them by allowing their dropships help them earn more c-bills which can in turn help them buy better weapons, possibly better mechs and skill up their mechs as well. This isn't use being altruistic, we just like to fight and will go wherever the enemy is but now that I have thought about it, what you are suggesting, I believe would be harmful to their pocket books as well as incredibly demoralizing and insulting to them. How bad would it feel to get wiped the first wave without killing any mechs and then be allowed to group up with 12 fresh mechs, push out and be wiped again? Your 2nd wave is fighting 12 wounded mechs yet you still can't kill very many of them if any at all? No. Sorry, every avenue I take while trying to consider this proposal ends with the situation being worse for the pugs and worse for us. I literally see no actual benefit for anyone involved if we were to do what you are asking.

Edited by Pat Kell, 09 August 2017 - 07:18 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Mycroft000, on 09 August 2017 - 06:16 PM, said:

One other note, on the equating of this game to war:

https://en.wikipedia...eva_Conventions

An argument could be made that any pilot who is not able to shoot back is technically not participating in the hostilities.

Oh for f***s sake. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

[Tesunie]

Bud Crue, on 09 August 2017 - 07:11 PM, said:

Oh for f***s sake. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

Depends...

I've been trying to say this is just a game, and as such we should seek balance. Thus why some mechs have quirks and such.

We have other people who say "it's war, you don't handicap yourself to make things a fair fight in war".

What can we do to convince these people that it, really honestly is, just a game? So far, I've been refuted each time because "it's war, it says it in the name, 'MechWARior'"...

[Bud Crue]

Tesunie, on 09 August 2017 - 07:18 PM, said:

Depends...

I've been trying to say this is just a game, and as such we should seek balance. Thus why some mechs have quirks and such.

We have other people who say "it's war, you don't handicap yourself to make things a fair fight in war".

What can we do to convince these people that it, really honestly is, just a game? So far, I've been refuted each time because "it's war, it says it in the name, 'MechWARior'"...

You want a refutation? Fine. To paraphrase the lord on high himself who created this game:

This is my game, I know best. (April 2016).
You should all be thanking me for making this game (April 2016).
I see this game as having a lot of e-sport potential. (2011 on down).

See also the tabs at the top of your screen. First one is "GAME" Therein is a tab called "GAME MODES". Seriously. No tabs called "REAL LIFE WAR" or WAR MODES.

No where did he who knows best, and he who is responsible for all that we loath and love in MWO has ever said that this is supposed to be a proxy for any sort of real life version of war, combat or even conflict. ITS A FU**ING GAME.
Hell, when they took away the factions and made us all share the same bucket, they even took away the element of nerd-politics. War is an extension of politics -Clausewitz. How can we even have a pretend nerd based war without nerd politics to extend therefrom?

Now excuse me. I need to go convince my TEAM (not platoon, not company, but team...as in a team that plays a god damn game) that we all need to start playing CW again so we can spawn camp the f*** out of the people who think this stompy robot game is a proxy for real life war.

Edited by Bud Crue, 09 August 2017 - 08:19 PM.