181 replies to this topic

[KoalaBrownie]

Quote

Thanks for answering the tier question. To be honest. Quicksilver Kalasas argument about your scores is pretty spot on. Has it ever occurred to you that a player with more experience (higher Tier) and better scores has a different and more solid grasp and view on the things?

Being a better player means next to nothing to me without a compelling argument. If an experienced player were to say "yes I've tried that, I couldn't get it to work, this is the build and this is my experience " then I would take them seriously.

But if a player has preconceptions going into a discussion and their opinion is built on that preconception, lacking any evidence, even anecdotal, then all that tells me is that a person has a narrow view of this game and there's not much to learn from them because they've stopped trying to learn.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 01:58 PM, said:

Being a better player means next to nothing to me without a compelling argument. If an experienced player were to say "yes I've tried that, I couldn't get it to work, this is the build and this is my experience " then I would take them seriously.

But if a player has preconceptions going into a discussion and their opinion is built on that preconception, lacking any evidence, even anecdotal, then all that tells me is that a person has a narrow view of this game and there's not much to learn from them because they've stopped trying to learn.

That's the thing you don't seem to understand, almost every good player learned from experience to not do things like this. It has nothing to do with build and not getting it to work and everything to do with understanding that against better players/teams that is foolish to attempt certain things because the risk is not worth the reward.

That "narrow view" of the game was taught by experience.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 July 2018 - 02:01 PM.

[KoalaBrownie]

In addition I would say in general that anyone who defines mech role based on weight class rather than speed, durability or firepower doesn't really understand the game. Weight class can inform those three attributes but it does not define them

[KoalaBrownie]

Quote

That's the thing you don't seem to understand, almost every good player learned from experience to not do things like this.

Still waiting to take you seriously as outlined in the very post you responded to.

[Quxudica]

I see this as all playing back into the systemic failings of the game. Buffing MG's came about in an attempt to (primarily) help maintain Lights role on the battlefield.. because MWO's battlefield only has one role; damage dealer. Sure you have some limited choice as to what range you want your damage dealt from, and what type (ballistic, energy, missile).. but that's really it. I wish MWO had held to it's original vision that held role warfare as a real game play pillar. Not every mech should be all about dealing massive damage, there should be recon mechs with recon equipment that provide benefit to team, IFW mechs that have their own unique tasks and abilities in the field (beyond entirely passive ecm that just.. happens because you exist). command mechs with equipment that give them real lance-support benefits and abilities.

If MWO offered tonnage and slot consuming equipment that offered real benefits to the team and viable alternative playstyles, equipment that can't just be tossed into a mech as an after thought to eat up the final spare tonne or two, it would provide a path to giving different weight classes and variants a place on the field without relying entirely on boosting the already insane amounts of damage in the game. If PGI hadn't over-simplified things by focusing entirely on every mech and every variant being put forward as a damage-dealer first and last.. things like this would be much less of an issue. It all comes back to the fact there just isn't anything else for a mech to offer beyond damage.

Edited by Quxudica, 25 July 2018 - 03:03 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 02:04 PM, said:

In addition I would say in general that anyone who defines mech role based on weight class rather than speed, durability or firepower doesn't really understand the game. Weight class can inform those three attributes but it does not define them

That's generally what is meant by weight class though. For example there is a reason why people say the Viper and Ice Ferret a mediums pretending to be lights. It's because lights are generally expected to go fast because they are the most optimized for it (outside of maybe 40 tonners which can mount equivalent weapons as a 35 tonner when going around 129kph, or 8/12s). There is also a reason slow lights are generally considered a handicap, because they don't have all the benefits bigger mechs have for going slow (like significantly more armor and firepower).

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 02:13 PM, said:

Still waiting to take you seriously as outlined in the very post you responded to.

You're expecting me to recall specific anecdotes of when I last tried to be a heavy mech pretending to be a light? What purpose does that serve exactly? Are you trying to "prove" to me that this whole time I've been doing it wrong in some sort of attempt to prove that I really am narrow minded?

Let me set the scenario then. I'm grinding my Summoners trying to get mastery on them because I'm a terrible OCD completionist. It's Alpine Peaks, I have 5 SRM6s. Long story short enemy is entrenched on H10 and friendlies are losing trades trying to take the I9 hill away. I run north using the low ground of the base to sneak up on the enemy and end up getting a kill shooting someone in the butt and evaporating him and do something like 900 damage taking 3 (including the one I killed) away from the fight. My team still loses but I do top damage or something like that and get a kill (and moral victory that I messed 2 other mechs up).

Yes, I have done this if only because I set rules for myself (like I wouldn't play the same build on each Summoner variant) and because I knew that potatoes were gonna potato and let me get away with it. Doesn't mean it is a good move, I would've been better off taking a ranged heavy and murdering the enemy at range with a better mech (this was before the nipple PPC Summoner) and it would've been much less risky as well and that's the important part, you don't seem to understand that better players and better teams know how to deal with that sort of move significantly better. Hell, I probably could've achieved similar results with a light except I could've run away after I killed the first. I would've caused the other 2 to squirrel and take them off the line but I also could've survived because I have the speed to get away and repeat this. This is the part you don't seem to understand.

Quxudica, on 25 July 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:

but that's really it. I wish MWO had held to it's original vision that held role warfare as a real game play pillar. Not every mech should be all about dealing massive damage, there should be recon mechs with recon equipment that provide benefit to team, IFW mechs that have their own unique tasks and abilities in the field (beyond entirely passive ecm that just.. happens because you exist). command mechs with equipment that give them real lance-support benefits and abilities.

Almost everyone would avoid those support units like the plague because they aren't very fun to play, plenty of other shooters have already proved this (Mechwarrior isn't unique in the role based play styles of shooters). There is a good reason for them to have avoided doing anything like that. This is a shooter, everyone needs to be able to contribute some amount of damage to be enjoyable, whether they provide more damage or have support functions on top is a different story. The Triple AMS Kit Fox is a really good example of this, it is pretty useful with the LRM meta, but very few individuals play it because for the majority of the population it is more fun to shoot robots. That isn't the population's fault either, it is the game's fault for creating a role that is almost completely dedicated to support.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 July 2018 - 03:21 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The vast majority of Heavies (read: anything not a Linebacker) take too long to flank and if they are just waiting on the side for the enemy to present a flank, they aren't contributing anything at all be it aggro-sharing or firepower.

If they get away with a flank, it's because the enemy wasn't paying attention to the numbers on the field and failed to press their advantage while that heavy was absent.

[Grus]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 July 2018 - 01:23 PM, said:

Very, very few 'Mechs have that crit chance reduction quirk (the ANH is among them, IIRC), and the Skill Maze values aren't high enough to mean anything at all.

Regardless, the IS side isn't the one with the crit-happy MG spam. For every one MG Flea or Arrow, you will find three Piranhas or Mist Lynx. This is the Clans owning themselves.

no argument on the few mechs that do have the crit reduction quirk ( atlas was my first thought) but the fact remains that they DO have them. Clan MG spam only works when you have 8+ otherwise its a joke/psychological warfare. Ill have guys not twist off well my direwolfs 100pnt lazer alpha, but the second i start firing off my 2 light mg's they run away screaming. Now, im not saying a pir or mistlinx canr do some serious damage.. its more twords the guys that are already with out armor that need to worry.

Now for IS MG's. They dont need to boat them because clan mecha fall apart WAY faster than IS. You just have to sneez at a clam mech without armor with a mg and the guy will lose 3 HS 2 erml a TC4 a dog his cat and an inlaw or two.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Grus, on 25 July 2018 - 04:07 PM, said:

Now for IS MG's. They dont need to boat them because clan mecha fall apart WAY faster than IS.

Maybe some IS mechs, but not many and the ones that do last longer than Clan mechs aren't nearly as much of a threat firepower wise. Either way, those MGs have to be better given they are heavier and IS mechs on the whole mount less.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 July 2018 - 04:11 PM.

[KoalaBrownie]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 July 2018 - 03:17 PM, said:

You're expecting me to recall specific anecdotes of when I last tried to be a heavy mech pretending to be a light? What purpose does that serve exactly? Are you trying to "prove" to me that this whole time I've been doing it wrong in some sort of attempt to prove that I really am narrow minded?

No, I'm expecting you to provide evidence to support your argument.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 July 2018 - 03:17 PM, said:

Yes, I have done this if only because I set rules for myself (like I wouldn't play the same build on each Summoner variant) and because I knew that potatoes were gonna potato and let me get away with it.

Right, so what this tells me is that you've flanked around with a short-range heavy on occasion, but you haven't done it as your go-to strategy with certain builds. That makes me question whether you have the experience to support the claims you're making.

Also do you consider yourself a skilled player? Or not? You say you got away with it because the enemy were potatoes but this game matches players of equal skill together so. . . either they weren't potatoes, or everyone in that game was a potato.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 July 2018 - 03:17 PM, said:

Doesn't mean it is a good move, I would've been better off taking a ranged heavy and murdering the enemy at range with a better mech (this was before the nipple PPC Summoner) and it would've been much less risky as well and that's the important part, you don't seem to understand that better players and better teams know how to deal with that sort of move significantly better.

Your team lost fighting a long-range battle and your conclusion in that scenario is that you would've been better off doing the same thing? Doesn't make sense mate. Could your long-range contribution have tipped the balance of power in that scenario? Possibly but not for certain.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 July 2018 - 03:17 PM, said:

Hell, I probably could've achieved similar results with a light except I could've run away after I killed the first. I would've caused the other 2 to squirrel and take them off the line but I also could've survived because I have the speed to get away and repeat this. This is the part you don't seem to understand.

And what about that scenario changes the outcome of the battle?

Yeonne Greene, on 25 July 2018 - 03:19 PM, said:

The vast majority of Heavies (read: anything not a Linebacker) take too long to flank and if they are just waiting on the side for the enemy to present a flank, they aren't contributing anything at all be it aggro-sharing or firepower.

A short-ranged heavy taking enemy fire beyond its maximum range doesn't contribute anything except stats padding for the enemy. Particularly if the attacks it's absorbing are delivered by infinite ammo weapons. So would you rather spend time at long range, absorbing fire and contributing no damage? Or invest that time flanking around to deliver a killing blow to at least one opponent?

Edited by KoalaBrownie, 25 July 2018 - 05:05 PM.

[Kubernetes]

Forget Ferro-Fibrous and Stealth, the strongest armor in the game is Dunning-Kruger.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 05:04 PM, said:

No, I'm expecting you to provide evidence to support your argument.

Sure, if you ignore everything I've said

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 05:04 PM, said:

Right, so what this tells me is that you've flanked around with a short-range heavy on occasion, but you haven't done it as your go-to strategy with certain builds. That makes me question whether you have the experience to support the claims you're making.

You don't have to do something as a "go-to strategy" to learn the advantages and disadvantages of a tactic. I don't think there has ever been a case in comp outside of getting caps back under control where you would ever send a heavy let alone any mech by itself ESPECIALLY behind enemy lines. That's how you lose a mech for absolutely no gain because teams aren't dumb and will spot you or notice that something is wrong so either the enemy takes care of you or takes care of the rest of you.

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 05:04 PM, said:

but this game matches players of equal skill together so

No, this is actually patently false. The MM TRIES to match people of equal skill together but it has safety valves that open if it cannot within a certain period of time and it also only tries to keep aggregate team PSRs within certain thresholds of equality as far as I remember. If what you said were true, only tier 1 players would play other tier 1 players but that has NEVER been the case since the introduction of PSR.

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 05:04 PM, said:

Your team lost fighting a long-range battle and your conclusion in that scenario is that you would've been better off doing the same thing? Doesn't make sense mate. Could your long-range contribution have tipped the balance of power in that scenario? Possibly but not for certain.

And what about that scenario changes the outcome of the battle?

They would've had another mech sharing armor (multiple friendlies with minor hurt is better than one dead and the rest fresh). Another mech that would be actively doing damage at the same time evening up trades and allowing for potential maneuvers or rotations. Teams working together even if a tactical error is made is almost always better than teams that having one or two people that made the right choice but no one else did, and having a heavy flanking by itself is the latter.

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 05:04 PM, said:

A short-ranged heavy taking enemy fire beyond its maximum range doesn't contribute anything except stats padding for the enemy. Particularly if the attacks it's absorbing are delivered by infinite ammo weapons. So would you rather spend time at long range, absorbing fire and contributing no damage? Or invest that time flanking around to deliver a killing blow to at least one opponent?

That's why a short ranged heavy is less effective unless he has other short ranged buddies. Again, that's your first mistake (a strategical error rather than tactical). That said, against lesser teams sure you can get away with flanking, but against better teams that just ends in you dead so you are better off holding until forces start to close in on each other for your time to try and capitalize on any hurt mechs that might be somewhat easy to approach or try to get everyone to push at an opportune time to make good use of your better team DPS.

Still, this is you trying to make the best of a bad choice before the match even started.

[Y E O N N E]

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 05:04 PM, said:

A short-ranged heavy taking enemy fire beyond its maximum range doesn't contribute anything except stats padding for the enemy. Particularly if the attacks it's absorbing are delivered by infinite ammo weapons. So would you rather spend time at long range, absorbing fire and contributing no damage? Or invest that time flanking around to deliver a killing blow to at least one opponent?

Congratulations, you took the wrong build for the map and/or your team's strategy.

Grus, on 25 July 2018 - 04:07 PM, said:

Now for IS MG's. They dont need to boat them because clan mecha fall apart WAY faster than IS. You just have to sneez at a clam mech without armor with a mg and the guy will lose 3 HS 2 erml a TC4 a dog his cat and an inlaw or two.

I dunno, I've gutted plenty of IS 'Mechs with just the two LMG I have on my FLE-15. It's stupid how fast literally everything can be crit out in this game.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 25 July 2018 - 07:06 PM.

[A Headless Chicken]

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 05:04 PM, said:

A short-ranged heavy taking enemy fire beyond its maximum range doesn't contribute anything except stats padding for the enemy. Particularly if the attacks it's absorbing are delivered by infinite ammo weapons. So would you rather spend time at long range, absorbing fire and contributing no damage? Or invest that time flanking around to deliver a killing blow to at least one opponent?

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but let me try my hand at translating:

i am a Heavy flanker, and you should be THANKFUL i managed to bless your game. no one else plays Heavies as flankers, only me, and you DARE imply that its my fault that NASCARs occur every game? this entire community is TOXIC and ruins the competitive experience for us Heavy flankers.

Stay with your team FFS, flanking in a heavy is a very nice way of saying committing suicide unless you're telling me your positioning is really that good.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

A Headless Chicken, on 25 July 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

unless you're telling me your positioning is really that good.

And even if his positioning is that good, it says something about the enemy teams situational awareness (or lack thereof).

[KoalaBrownie]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 July 2018 - 05:54 PM, said:

Sure, if you ignore everything I've said

Giving an opinion while claiming to be an authority figure is not evidence.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 July 2018 - 05:54 PM, said:

You don't have to do something as a "go-to strategy" to learn the advantages and disadvantages of a tactic. I don't think there has ever been a case in comp outside of getting caps back under control where you would ever send a heavy let alone any mech by itself ESPECIALLY behind enemy lines.

Theory isn't a case example. "I don't think there has ever been a case . . . where you would ever".

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 July 2018 - 05:54 PM, said:

No, this is actually patently false. The MM TRIES to match people of equal skill together but it has safety valves that open if it cannot within a certain period of time and it also only tries to keep aggregate team PSRs within certain thresholds of equality as far as I remember. If what you said were true, only tier 1 players would play other tier 1 players but that has NEVER been the case since the introduction of PSR.

And can you prove that the players on the team you flanked were not your skill level of higher? You call them potatoes because its fits your narrative, nothing more.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 July 2018 - 05:54 PM, said:

They would've had another mech sharing armor (multiple friendlies with minor hurt is better than one dead and the rest fresh). Another mech that would be actively doing damage at the same time evening up trades and allowing for potential maneuvers or rotations. Teams working together even if a tactical error is made is almost always better than teams that having one or two people that made the right choice but no one else did, and having a heavy flanking by itself is the latter.

Those tactics are fine if you want to recreate Napoleonic warfare, but if you want modern tactics flanking is essential and should not be limited to skirmish units.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 July 2018 - 05:54 PM, said:

Still, this is you trying to make the best of a bad choice before the match even started.

And it's you trying to justify an opinion without having ever actively sought to prove it right or wrong.

Yeonne Greene, on 25 July 2018 - 07:05 PM, said:

Congratulations, you took the wrong build for the map and/or your team's strategy..

"You took the wrong build for the map"? Do you play this game?

A Headless Chicken, on 25 July 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

I have no idea what you're trying to say

Correct

Edited by KoalaBrownie, 25 July 2018 - 07:38 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

Giving an opinion while claiming to be an authority figure is not evidence.

You realize you are doing the exact same thing....right?

For example my anecdotal evidence you dismissed because I "might not be experienced" enough for me to be qualified enough to judge whether or not your tactic is good.

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

Theory isn't a case example. "I don't think there has ever been a case . . . where you would ever".

If you can't extrapolate based on experience then how are you ever learning or able to make any judgements.....for example how are you able to say that flanking in a heavy is worth doing if you've never done any other "go-to-strategy", sorry but that's dumb and undermines human intelligence.

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

And can you prove that the players on the team you flanked were not your skill level of higher? You call them potatoes because its fits your narrative, nothing more.

I cal them potatoes because if I tried that against players at my skill level or higher I'd be dead, because that's how you learn that it is a bad idea, by making those mistakes.

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

Those tactics are fine if you want to recreate Napoleonic warfare, but if you want modern tactics flanking is essential and should not be limited to skirmish units.

What era these "styles" of play are from really doesn't matter and it is stupid to compare it to such because this isn't real life. This is a game, and I'm detailing what is considered most effective by teams that play at the highest level within MWO. Doesn't it seem odd that all the teams that are considered strong in this game have all learned the same thing despite having varying experiences?

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

And it's you trying to justify an opinion without having ever actively sought to prove it right or wrong.

And exactly what would qualify as that pray tell?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 July 2018 - 07:51 PM.

[A Headless Chicken]

It's time you gave up Quicksilver, arguing with someone who says flanking with a heavy is the right way to play is like trying to convince a grade schooler not to eat paste, the only difference being the grade schooler might actually listen.

[The Mysterious Fox]

they reduced clan component health a couple of patches ago, ergo cause and effect :/

[Y E O N N E]

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

"You took the wrong build for the map"? Do you play this game?

More than you, chuckles.

The adorable thing is you obviously predicating your entire argument on the core of the game being Quick Play. You know, that game mode where players (yourself included) are so utterly terrible that you can make awful mistakes in the MechLab and in the match and still carry a match.

So GG, having no idea about what is smart and strong in the game. Keep fighting a battle you lost before it began, it humors me.