Jump to content

This Map Shpuld Not Exist


86 replies to this topic

#41 Thrudvangar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 638 posts

Posted 22 March 2019 - 01:46 PM

View PostLily from animove, on 22 March 2019 - 09:19 AM, said:

yeah I should start to tell that High classed NBA Team Trainers if they flame my horribel stats at their strange game called basketball as well. Sorry stats are stats if you think they mean nothing why would they differ on players? And why du coincidently player with lower stats have more issues with lrm's than those with good stats? pure coincidence right?

And yes your words about radar derp, decay and rushing DO SHOW you do not know the basics and therefore yes your stats show your skill. Skilled players know these basics and utilise them.



There are many cases in wich a players stats can't show his/her skill. Don't blame me because of my stats, you haven't played with me yet so....

If you can't get this, boy, shut the **** up.

If you have "great" stats. Good for you, how did you raise it? Think twice before you post your answer.. pro-tip, it's not your "godly" skill alone...

#42 Thrudvangar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 638 posts

Posted 22 March 2019 - 01:53 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 22 March 2019 - 08:25 AM, said:


You talk like you haven't - or you've chosen to ignore how Target Decay interacts with Radar Deprivation. You dismiss any cover that doesn't physically block all incoming LRMs as having no effect, then claim that "the only counter to LRMs" is a concerted push - forget that you're objecting to being told that the cover you're dismissing allows you to close with the boats to do that. So are the countermeasure tactics you're being given bad ideas, or are they "the only counter to LRMS?" Which is it? Which one of you am I talking to right now? You are literally flipping your argument upside down to "rebut" different people, depending on what you think lets you dismiss their arguments. You do the same thing when you tried to dismiss Tesunie's arguments based on your personal opinion of her LRM guide - then outrageously declared Lily to be "disqualified" when she brought up actual hard data about your skill level - so if she's disqualified, so are you. Well done; you've declared yourself the loser in your own argument.

The problem here is you, not the map. The map's lack of blocking cover for LRMs is a weakness - but it's not a game-breaking problem, because counterplay exists. It doesn't stop existing because you don't want to use it. It's your failure to adapt, your stubborn refusal to change your desired tactics to fit the actual map - to fight on the map you have, not the map you want. No amount of unsupported insults about your critic's skill level (while in the next breath hypocritically "disqualifying" an opponent you failed to rebut for mentioning your own skill metrics) will let you out of the fact that other people get these tactics to work. Your failure is your own, and none of the ad hominem attacks and genetic fallacies, or any of the other sophistry you've started in with will disguise the fact that you're simply refusing to adapt.

Nor that you have lost the argument.



[Redacted]

Its a mystery for me, all these godly players here blaming me, my lack of "understanding the basics" and all that... i never see you playing with or against me (random queque only)....

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 22 March 2019 - 04:59 PM.
inappropriate references


#43 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,523 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 22 March 2019 - 01:58 PM

View PostThrudvangar, on 22 March 2019 - 01:46 PM, said:


There are many cases in wich a players stats can't show his/her skill. Don't blame me because of my stats, you haven't played with me yet so....

If you can't get this, boy, shut the **** up.

If you have "great" stats. Good for you, how did you raise it? Think twice before you post your answer.. pro-tip, it's not your "godly" skill alone...


I'm going to recommend you simmer down a little?

I'm not in total disagreement, but people have a right to discuss things. Though I don't always agree (read as, rarely) with Lily, they don't have to "shut up".

As for stats, I can contest to a match I just had where I had a friendly Zeus behind me moments ago. So, figuring my back was being watched, I moved forward to engage the enemy around a corner. Then I heard the little "ping ping" of MGs on my backside. I was already committed and was really counting on said ally to protect my backside, as I had a choice to deal damage to the person in front of me, or turn around and deal damage to the person behind me, resulting in death by back destruction either way. being a PUG drop as it was... I died very quickly because the Zeus left me and went their own way.

So, stats don't always reflect how good a team player someone is, nor have relation to their actual in game knowledge. All it can reflect is how regular their in match impact is, and/or how seriously they play the game. I don't tend to play all that serious, so it's one of the reasons my stats aren't always good. For this event, I've been taking things a little more serious, and my current leaderboard (should never have been a thing unless you volunteer for it) shows much better averages than my Jarl's listing shows I've had over the past few seasons. (But I've also been playing almost the same mech exclusively, which is getting a little tiresome...)

#44 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,889 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 23 March 2019 - 01:03 AM

View PostTesunie, on 22 March 2019 - 01:58 PM, said:


I'm going to recommend you simmer down a little?

I'm not in total disagreement, but people have a right to discuss things. Though I don't always agree (read as, rarely) with Lily, they don't have to "shut up".

As for stats, I can contest to a match I just had where I had a friendly Zeus behind me moments ago. So, figuring my back was being watched, I moved forward to engage the enemy around a corner. Then I heard the little "ping ping" of MGs on my backside. I was already committed and was really counting on said ally to protect my backside, as I had a choice to deal damage to the person in front of me, or turn around and deal damage to the person behind me, resulting in death by back destruction either way. being a PUG drop as it was... I died very quickly because the Zeus left me and went their own way.

So, stats don't always reflect how good a team player someone is, nor have relation to their actual in game knowledge. All it can reflect is how regular their in match impact is, and/or how seriously they play the game. I don't tend to play all that serious, so it's one of the reasons my stats aren't always good. For this event, I've been taking things a little more serious, and my current leaderboard (should never have been a thing unless you volunteer for it) shows much better averages than my Jarl's listing shows I've had over the past few seasons. (But I've also been playing almost the same mech exclusively, which is getting a little tiresome...)


great about the jarl list is it lists all the seasons of a player next to eahc other, makes it easir to compare stuff, it's really a bit annoying that the MWO site can't do that.

#45 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,119 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 23 March 2019 - 01:30 AM

Im love all this new Warriors thats will play and win without risk , and not trying new tactics or Strategies ...thats searching Cover behind Strawmen arguments and helpless ,when the map is not build around her own Assault Build and Playstyle...Hey Guys, her not good Pilots , her only whining Whimps thats will have easy fights like Mamas Lullaby...All thats Heros crying and whining ...nerf this weapon, away this Map ...away with Strikes ...her was all not in the Army ? all not works in reality ?The Life is not a Ponyhof...not in the Reality whos her must plays and works with other People.
When you Build to special , or the Mech not for this Map , use a other Mech and Build ...or play only against AI Bots.No Lee`s or Grant`s only Mc Clellans

Thats the Problem since months and drives me away from MWO now only KINDERGARTEN..now im Play further ARMA and War thunder...oh the Sky and Sea have no Cover XD

Edit:Assaults the baddest Class for Beginners , and im as Veteran let this Fat boys most in the Stable..for the Most maps a Mix Build from Heavy or Medium the better Horse and lifed longer a Assault prime targets

Quote

R.E.Lee

Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret.

We must expect reverses, even defeats. They are sent to teach us wisdom and prudence, to call forth greater energies, and to prevent our falling into greater disasters.


Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 23 March 2019 - 02:03 AM.


#46 B0oN

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,852 posts

Posted 23 March 2019 - 06:31 AM

View PostCommander James Raynor, on 13 March 2019 - 01:35 PM, said:

It has been said before, but I really need to stress just how important this is: htis map is bad, very bad. The absolute lack of cover makes LRM reign supreme, with 0 counter. I know it looks bad to backtrack on a map and it seems like a waste of effort to work on a map and then can it, but the map is a serious detriment to the game.
Just eliminate it, and kill Alpine too.

ERLL
ERPPC
GAUSS
AC2
UAC2
ATM
STEALTH
ECM

= 0 counters ?

Yea sure .

#47 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,523 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 23 March 2019 - 07:26 AM

View PostLily from animove, on 23 March 2019 - 01:03 AM, said:


great about the jarl list is it lists all the seasons of a player next to eahc other, makes it easir to compare stuff, it's really a bit annoying that the MWO site can't do that.


I still wish that leaderboards and publicly visible stats was an optin feature for those who wish to have it tracked. I've had far too often since the leaderboard came out seen "you is wrong, you bad player" as a counter argument. Many times, as a counter to technical information. "LRMs have a minimum range of 180m." "You is wrong, bad player. Look at stats." "Um....?"

Yes, I had that literal conversation in another thread, where apparently my stats made me wrong on technical (not opinion based) information on the behavior of AMS... And yet no one could tell me what part of my technical information was incorrect. So that, if I was incorrect, I could present the correct information instead....

Besides that, Jarl's list isn't a bad place to go, because you can see your season to season changes. I can tell you exactly when the Huntsmen came out from my Jarl's stats (if I didn't already know). I can also tell you exactly when my girlfriend and other people I know joined the game and I started to play with them... It's kinda nice to be able to see those stats and how certain events have impacted them (even if no one else knows about said events in my life).

View PostB0oN, on 23 March 2019 - 06:31 AM, said:

= 0 counters ?


You forgot AMS, which seems to be very powerful anti-missile equipment now than it use to be when this thread started... Posted Image

#48 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,687 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 23 March 2019 - 01:42 PM

View PostImperialKnight, on 22 March 2019 - 08:34 AM, said:

no one is arguing about having a "right way" to play the map, of course there is. no one is arguing about how to counter LRMs, saying "just close the distance and punch their face in" is easy, when you're not the one getting focused. no one is arguing there are ways to "manage" the map, sure bring ALL your ECM and AMS

But all these does not stop it from being an objectively badly designed map


Actually, they are arguing about a right way to play the map. They're insisting that the map is so bad that it should not exist - mostly because of LRMs. Another way of phrasing that claim is that the map is so bad that there is no right way to play it other than by slugging it out with Long Range Missiles.

It is this claim that is objectively incorrect - and, equally objectively, you have misunderstood at least some of the objections offered to this position. Hang on, I'll explain.

What myself and others argue is that while situations do exist where your team can get smashed with no counterplay (due to random arrangement of teams and the selection bias of builds brought,) those cases are far more rare than the map's detractors think - and that in most cases the map is well-playable if you use the terrain. Polar Highlands' terrain is a lot like places in the American Great Plains; it looks flat, but there are dead spaces out there you could move an army through. Polar Highlands doesn't have deep canyons, or giant trees, or enormous rocks throughout most of its' area - but it does have those gently-rolling, deceptively flat-looking snowbanks. And this throws people, because it requires new solutions to what they have long since stopped thinking of as a tactical problem.

I have to pause here and talk - briefly - about tactics. In nearly all other maps, players have tall-cover objects and terrain features to hide and move behind. Canyon Network is a great example of this - and of the playing style such terrain inspires. In PuG play, a match generally consists of players moving toward contact with the enemy team, stopping when they make contact and then jockeying amongst all that high cover for either position of fire superiority, then finally closing in on the enemy team once both sides have taken some losses. Most of the match takes place at that middle stage - and that stage revolves around the availability of high cover.

So going back to Polar Highlands, players are suddenly confronted with a new type of terrain, where nearly all the tactical solutions they've come to think of as just "how you play" are solutions to problems that either don't work, or don't actually exist in the map they're playing. Problems like: "How do you deal with a choke point when the enemy team is spread out on the other side of it?" "How do you deal with incoming LRMs when the team isn't moving?" What is the best way to maneuver to gain an advantage over the enemy?

All of these questions pose tactical problems whose solutions are different on Polar Highlands than on any other map (except Viridin Bog in some cases, but I digress.) There is no cover tall enough to physically block LRMs over the vast majority of the map; defilading cover is much different, with no easy means to reach alternate cover in response to a flanking force. Players see a map with none of the tall-cover objects and terrain they know and love (how often does Canyon Network fail to be selected when it's up for a vote?) - and they conclude that "this is a sniping map with no LRM cover! This Map Shpuld[sic] Not Exist!"

That conclusion is wrong: its premise - that this is a map only good for sniping and LRMS - is incorrect, and so the conclusion that it should be thrown away is invalid. This map is a mobility map. The lack of good cover for camping means you have to move - but I'm telling you, the map gives you the ability to do this (that's why "just close the distance and punch in their faces" is an objectively wrong characterization.) Yet this invalidates a lot of people's playing styles. It feels wrong to them because they've never had to deal with this kind of terrain over the whole map before - and frankly they've arrived at their current set of tactics by social influence and trial-and-error. Yet the map isn't bad, it's just different - and after a lot of maps that require very similar tactics, it's frustrating to watch people scream for the map to be erased rather than learn from it.

It is the curious task of Polar Highlands to demonstrate to players how little they know about the tactics they believe they understand.

PS: We're well aware of the problems that can arise on the map - where one team has a scouting capability that their enemy doesn't have the 'mechs to counter. That's a legitimate problem with the map design, which might be solved by just deepening the low routes into trenches in places. But this is a problem to be solved, like bad starting positions giving one team an advantage; it doesn't destroy the value of the map. And I've personally had my teams just assume that they were screwed from the get-go and then proceed to make that a reality by trying to camp out at one of the refineries before getting picked to shreds. Not just once or twice, either; I'm talking match, after match, after match, after match. It's taken a huge hit out of my enjoyment of the map, because so many times I have to try and drag my kicking and screaming teammates down the path to victory - only to see them often refuse to listen to me and then blame me for the loss.

That's why I keep responding to these threads.

Edited by Void Angel, 24 March 2019 - 10:09 PM.


#49 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,889 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 24 March 2019 - 04:51 AM

rule of nature, adapt and overcome

rule of humans: adjust and overcome.

but games are hardcoded so they go back to the rule of nature.

#50 General Solo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,606 posts

Posted 25 March 2019 - 06:22 AM

Still not running ams

dead weight

Cover.......Never leave home without it

On this map I generally stay low and close in to the snowbank closest to the enemy and poke from there.
If the enemy can see you and you have no cover, turn around fast, get back to cover.

Cover is mech height, some what soft cover and mostly to prevent LOS, thus damage and missile locks.
Keep exposure short so you don't get missile locked. Peek shoot return quickly, cool down repeat etc.

If the enemy backs off stops poking I move up to the next snowbank and repeat.

Avoid the open flats with no cover at all costs unless you out range the enemy.

Also as Boon said, with Larger Lasors, PPC, AC2 and 5, gauss you can poke hit and return to cover before Lrms can get a lock.

Unless they got full Target Decay and are 400 metres or less, then the lack of hard cover can hurt.
Next game get radar derp and rek that guy Posted Image

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 25 March 2019 - 06:39 AM.


#51 B0oN

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,852 posts

Posted 25 March 2019 - 08:03 AM

View PostTesunie, on 23 March 2019 - 07:26 AM, said:

You forgot AMS, which seems to be very powerful anti-missile equipment now than it use to be when this thread started... Posted Image


Thanks, Tesunie ! <3

Me biggest nub, naturally forgetting the single most OP defense platform for this map against lrms/atms .

#52 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,687 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 25 March 2019 - 08:42 AM

Well, I actually haven't tried out the changes - but if AMS is really as game-breakingly powerful as people are posting it is, you can expect it to be nerfed.

The best way to think about AMS is as damage reduction, rather than outright damage prevention.

#53 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,523 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 25 March 2019 - 08:52 AM

View PostVoid Angel, on 25 March 2019 - 08:42 AM, said:

Well, I actually haven't tried out the changes - but if AMS is really as game-breakingly powerful as people are posting it is, you can expect it to be nerfed.

The best way to think about AMS is as damage reduction, rather than outright damage prevention.


Right now, my observations of what AMS units I can count affecting my LRMs when I bring them, is that a single AMS is on par with taking out 15 missiles rather easily. My Huntsmen with two LRM15s can't seem to pierce what appears to me to be two AMS units. To be perfectly honest, between the damage event going on and how AMS seems to react to missiles, I've not been playing much LRMs at the moment. I just can't seem to do damage with them right now.

I'm giving it time, because there is a lot of AMS out at the moment, but it does feel like AMS might have gotten a bit too much of a boost at the moment... I'll revisit the subject after the event... (plus, I'm doing a stats experiment because I've had a lot of people detract what I'm saying on the forums because of them. So, I'm playing "serous*" since the event started, and I'm trying to see if I play "serous*" what I can really make of my seasonal stats for this season.

*Of course, Serous also means "using the same build type that is proven to deal large amounts of damage reliably over and over again, even if it gets boring after a while".

#54 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,484 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 25 March 2019 - 10:21 AM

I have to say if we had easier access to radar deprivation, and maybe a little more cover, this map wouldn't be as bad.

#55 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,523 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 25 March 2019 - 12:59 PM

View PostKursedVixen, on 25 March 2019 - 10:21 AM, said:

I have to say if we had easier access to radar deprivation, and maybe a little more cover, this map wouldn't be as bad.


Radar Deprivation is only a little more costly than Adv Target Decay, and I will point out it does more than ATD does... Maybe a couple nodes should be easier to get though... It's a plausible option in my opinion.

#56 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,687 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 25 March 2019 - 08:48 PM

The map does need a little more tall cover. Just deepening the trenches that occur in some places might help that, or putting in open-walled roofed structures of some kind - maintenance sheds, solar panel arrays, ruined buildings, dropship wreckage, abandonded construction... anything that blocks LRMs without providing tall-cover camping zones would be good for the map, I think.

The problem the vast majority of my actual teammates and forum complainers have is that they think it's a sniping map that doesn't have enough cover to be a sniping map. They're playing the map they think they see instead of the map that's there, then complaining when reality smacks their hand.

#57 PFC Carsten

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 2,188 posts
  • LocationOn your six

Posted 27 March 2019 - 05:57 AM

View PostKursedVixen, on 25 March 2019 - 10:21 AM, said:

I have to say if we had easier access to radar deprivation, and maybe a little more cover, this map wouldn't be as bad.

The beauty of the skill tree: You get to make your choices as you see fit. You cannot have it all.

#58 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 27 March 2019 - 03:12 PM

View PostHammerMaster, on 13 March 2019 - 01:59 PM, said:

AMS
ECM
Radar Deprivation
Cover
Positioning
Did I miss anything?


Common sense. That's pay 2 win magic apparently.

#59 Requiemking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Solitary
  • The Solitary
  • 2,468 posts
  • LocationStationed at the Iron Dingo's Base on Dumassas

Posted 27 March 2019 - 05:43 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 20 March 2019 - 12:18 AM, said:

Actually he's just referring to the equipment from tabletop, which was simply called C3. It was a tonnage/space system with a master control computer that could network three other one-ton slave computers - you could link up to a company by slaving the 'mechs carrying the command console to a fourth console. MWO's target data sharing is different, since it doesn't affect accuracy; in actual fact target information was shared between players on a same team (even in double-blind format,) exactly like MWO with the exception (I think) of missile spotting. I'd have to dig out the book and check. But there's a certain class of MWO critic who like trying to shore up their wants for this game with rules from a different game.

Frankly, if you have to resort to supporting your ideas with a fallacious appeal to the authority of a rulebook for a different game in an entirely different format, you probably just need better ideas - but that's another thread.

In terms of in-game effects, yes, MWO target-sharing system works differently from C3 and C3i. However, MWO's system works exactly the same as C3 is described to work in the fluff, sharing target data between all mechs on the network. The fact of the matter is, the fluff can be just as important for designing mechanics as the actual TT mechanics. One such example is IS vs Clan ACs. IS ACs are closest to how ACs functioned in TT as far as rules go, just one big burst of damage, while Clan ACs behave in much the same way as how ACs were described in the fluff, a rapid burst of rounds from what is essentially an oversized rapid-fire tank cannon.

#60 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,687 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 27 March 2019 - 06:39 PM

The supporting story and sidebars can be used to flesh out and suggest game mechanics, but that's not what the people talking about "free C3" are doing. The "free" part is an implicit reference to tonnage, and that means tabletop rules. There has never been a tonnage (or other) cost for just sharing target information, and it has always been a part of Battletech computer games since The Crescent Hawk's Inception. Some people think that eliminating the current target sharing system would make the game more tactical - and they may be right - but irrespective of their opinion, MWO's system is neither a departure from the norm nor a game-breaking tonnage-free C3 system.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users