You are aware that people can target the mech and see the loadout, right? ... And that its fairly easy to tell the engine and amount of ammo based on weaponry? ... And that every important enough comp match is streamed and recorded? ... Really makes you wonder for how many years those top secret builds from top units are being kept secret.
Sure, builds used in comp are different from widely recognized "meta", simple coz they are meant to kill 1-2 mechs in a match where all of your teammates contribute rather than nuke an entire team while carrying a bag of 11 tatoes in tow. But to claim there are some sort of "secret" builds kept hidden by "l33t units" is preposterous at best. Any kind of weird "cheese" we come up with only stays secret for 4-5 days and becomes public knowledge in comp scene right after the very first match played with it.
Comp builds are very different from QP and FP builds. I don't think most people care about comp builds, they want builds to use day to day.
Comp builds are very different from QP and FP builds. I don't think most people care about comp builds, they want builds to use day to day.
I can't really imagine there being much point in keeping a comp build secret. Team composition, both in players and which of those comp builds are blended together, and match-to-match tactics are what actually matters. It means nothing to know the build if you don't also know what it's designed to work in tandem with and on what map.
I can't really imagine there being much point in keeping a comp build secret. Team composition, both in players and which of those comp builds are blended together, and match-to-match tactics are what actually matters. It means nothing to know the build if you don't also know what it's designed to work in tandem with and on what map.
I think your point could do with some sharpening if it missed me that badly. I can fully understand that comp meta and QP/FP meta are different environments entirely. They need to do different things to fit into their environments. That's not the point I'm arguing with. You make the claim that the builds as listed on Grimmechs (which aren't comp builds anyway) are not actually the best versions available, that they can greatly improved upon. When asked how, your response is that it's a secret kept within top units only, implying that we're now talking about comp builds. So I bring up how meaningless it is to keep a comp build secret and then get told I've missed the point.
Like, I get how you might just be trying to be sarcastic? But it's coming across like you're serious.
I think your point could do with some sharpening if it missed me that badly. I can fully understand that comp meta and QP/FP meta are different environments entirely. They need to do different things to fit into their environments. That's not the point I'm arguing with. You make the claim that the builds as listed on Grimmechs (which aren't comp builds anyway) are not actually the best versions available, that they can greatly improved upon. When asked how, your response is that it's a secret kept within top units only, implying that we're now talking about comp builds. So I bring up how meaningless it is to keep a comp build secret and then get told I've missed the point.
Like, I get how you might just be trying to be sarcastic? But it's coming across like you're serious.
Top units in comp have different builds than top units in QP/FP was my point
Players in those units that play in multiple modes also use different builds for each game mode.
Those builds are usually not posted, and outside of comp, people usually don't dissect builds that intensely, leading to a big gap between metamechs available online and the truly best builds for each mode.
For example, as a FP player foremost, I see around half of meta mech builds are actually mediocre for FP.
Top units in comp have different builds than top units in QP/FP was my point
Players in those units that play in multiple modes also use different builds for each game mode.
Those builds are usually not posted, and outside of comp, people usually don't dissect builds that intensely, leading to a big gap between metamechs available online and the truly best builds for each mode.
Now we're on the same wavelength, yeah. I'm still not sure there's a reason to keep said builds hidden, but given how MANY little tweaks can be made depending on map/mode it's easy to agree that there's too many variations for sake of optimization than can be readily listed.
Now we're on the same wavelength, yeah. I'm still not sure there's a reason to keep said builds hidden, but given how MANY little tweaks can be made depending on map/mode it's easy to agree that there's too many variations for sake of optimization than can be readily listed.
Which goes back to my point, meta mech builds available on the internet are fine as a starting point for optimizing your builds, but the people that want to go entirely different aren't creating 'fun' builds, they're creating masochistic builds. Their salty tears and searching for other sources to blame are a constant source of entertainment on the forums.
Part one: Assuming someone is an "armchair general" when you know little to nothing about their abilities to formulate and execute tactics is...well unwise and a poor basis for formulating an argument. Even I can tell this is tactically unsound.
Unless you have comp experience (as far as I'm aware you don't) or are demonstrably able to perform in solo queue (you don't). You don't have valid experience in tactics in this game. It's does't matter if you are a chess grandmaster or a master tactician in another domain. Unless you can translate those abilities to this game it's irrelevant.
Quote
As a situation changes a proficient tactician also changes their tactics.
If knowing this (that NASCAR is going to happen), you refuse to change your tactics, does that not then mean you aren't a proficient tactician?
Quote
Players stick to NASCAR no matter how bad of a plan it may be and most players can't see that NASACAR is going to fail well before it does.
Bad players do this, good players adapt to what's happening in the battlefield. Good players NASCAR when it benefits them and don't when it benefits them. However, because good players can't control their team it may not benefit them to stop NASCARing even if it would be the better strategic situation.
Players can NASCAR and still be good (NASCAR has helped win the WC). Saying that players are bad just because they may choose to NASCAR is a fallacy.
Quote
I usually can call a failed NASCAR on the first half of a rotation. But by then it's to late all of these elite tactical geniuses won't adapt and won't stop running to the left even when it's a bad choice.
The capacity to realize these things is what makes someone decent at strategy and tactics.
No, the ability to implement successful action based on your situation is what makes someone decent at strategy and tactics. I agree that someone who doesn't recognize a failed NASCAR is bad at tactics, however recognizing a bad NASCAR is insufficient to make someone good at tactics.
Quote
Also, projecting the assumption that someone is incompetent without first establishing truth is a commonly used logical fallacy argument ( a well known and poor debate tactic) The basis of your argument is, if I gather it...
Ah, now we bring in the fallacy fallacy. None of these points are really relevant to the discussion regardless of their validity.
Spoiler
Quote
Players stats = tactical knowledge (this is a false dichotomy)
Perhaps I shouldn't state it in quite as definitive terms, but it boils down to:
The worse a player's stats are -> The higher the probability that their tactical knowledge is poor.
Good tactics win more than they lose (given random teams over a large sample).
People that use good tactics should win more than they lose unless their mechanical skill is extremely poor or unless mechanical skill is significantly more important than tactics (in this case tactics are irrelevant compared to skill)
A player with poor stats is likely to be using bad tactics. Choosing fun over meta is a poor tactical decision (however one that is fine to make). However, good players can do well even in poor builds by making good decisions. Having a WLR < 1 is a strong indicator that the player isn't making good choices in match, because good players can do well even in bad mechs when playing for fun.
Quote
Assumed incompetence by declaring someone is an "armchair general" (Hasty generalization)
You have provided no evidence that you have tactical experience in MWO. Having presented your claims without evidence they can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof lies on you.
Have you helped lead a serious team and develop tactics and strategies for that team? If not, you're just arguing from a theoretical standpoint and don't have experience. Perhaps you do and perhaps it's an overreach on my part, if so I'll retract this piece of what I said. My experience however is that many people making claims as you do don't have the practical experience in this game (where it matters) to back up their claims.
Quote
If someone opposing your opinion is "incompetent" then of course you must be correct (ad hominem)
If you claim competency in something then your competence is a valid point of discussion in the debate. You claimed to be able to perform well if you chose to do so. I dispute this claim. This doesn't make my argument correct, but it can mean that your point is incorrect.
Quote
You are "good" and therefore know better than others (appeal to authority)
I have experience playing the game and doing well, it shows at least to some measure that my tactics are effective (I win more than I lose). I also have helped develop and implement tactics in comp play so I have practical experience in the use of tactics in this game.
None of this means that my arguments are right (that would be an appeal to authority), but having experience and expertise are valid contributing factors to my knowledge of what makes a tactic good or bad.
Rather than say, "I'm good listen to me". I gave a specific example of why (as a light) I often choose to NASCAR to kill the enemy assaults. It's based on experience and generally born out in the results I get. If I have good reason to go back to help the assaults then I do. It's not a blind mindless chase as you describe it, it's making a choice based on my previous experience and current evaluation of the battlefield situation.
It's a case example (using myself) of how NASCAR can be a tactical decision at a pilot level. You're overly simplifying the point I was trying to convey in order to dismiss it as a fallacy.
My arguments are as follows
I: Matchmaker is random, you will be assigned to a team with no control over what that team will do (i.e. players may or may not be willing to listen to your suggestions)
II: A team is more likely to NASCAR that not.
III: Posting on the forums is not going to change this in any meaningful way
(III.a It's foolish to argue on the forums against NASCAR)
IV: The best tactical decision is to be prepared to NASCAR.
(IV.a If you refuse to do this then you are making poor tactical decision and contributing to your team losing)
Quote
The problem is you have not actually establish any counters to my actual arguments. I claim NASCAR as a "tactic" is not technically a tactic because it does not consider any of the potential strengths or weaknesses in a randomly assigned quick play team. Therefore since no actual knowledge of the teams capacity is taken into consideration NASCAR is not tactics but reaction.
Quote
A : NASCAR fails to meet criteria for a tactic because it will be execute no matter the validity of the action.
Where is this the criteria for a tactic? By definition, Tactic:
NASCAR is a device (rotate left) for accomplishing an end (kill mechs, win the match). It is by definition a tactic. Whether it is a good or bad tactic can be debated, but it is a tactic. Your first point is incorrect, your argument is built on a faulty premise.
Quote
B : Match maker criteria has an overly inflated influence on victory conditions because NASCAR will be performed no matter the validity of the "tactic".
If I understand this correctly you are arguing that MM has an oversize effect on WLR because one team or another will be better suited for NASCAR?
I have several issues with this:
I. You assume NASCAR is guaranteed. It's not. It may be likely, but not guaranteed.
II. Your probability of being on a team that doesn't NASCAR is the same as anyone else's (in fact it is higher if you personally don't chose to NASCAR which should increase your WLR).
III. NASCAR isn't going to drive W/L any more than player skill would (good players are going to be less likely to NASCAR when it's a bad choice)
IV. The idea that NASCAR is the reason a player has bad WLR is flawed and obscures the real issue, which is player skill and choices
My points are:
A: NASCAR is by definition a tactic
B: It can be the best tactic for a team
C: Even if it is not the best tactic for a team due to mech composition/position it can be the best tactical decision for an individualpilot to make given the team's choices
D: Given the reality of NASCAR it's foolish not to adapt how you play to be prepared for it
E: Bad stats are caused by bad players/choices, not the NASCAR bogeyman
You overgeneralize that because many players NASCAR brainlessly that NASCAR itself is brainless and the problem. It is neither. The problem is that bad players make bad decisions. NASCAR is inherently neither good nor bad, it is situational. In many QP matches it is the best choice you as a pilot can make given the players on your team and how they will behave. Ignoring this is applying tactics in a vacuum that isn't based in reality.
Lykaon, on 08 July 2019 - 05:24 AM, said:
in all seriousness when it comes to NASCAR MWO "tactics" all you need to do is this.
Be fast enough to not fall behind and to maintain LOS on enemy targets
Output high damage and frequently
Have a basic competence in defensive piloting ie. twisting.
Have a basic competence in gunnery
These apply to any strategy in MWO. Not being able to keep up with the team is a serious liability and expecting the team to play around a mech without any prior planning or strategy is both selfish and foolish.
Quote
Anyone who plays this can "get gud" if they would stick to this simple plan.
Get an elite tier mech
use an elite tier build on it
keep up
don't miss
And since team composition is randomly assigned if you are piloting a chassis that has NASCAR potential that is one fewer random factors on your team. You have the proper machine for the job so +1 factor for you.
Yes, piloting good mechs will get better stats, however good players are still able to do well even without piloting good mechs. Consistently performing poorly (regardless of mechs) is a sign of a poor player. Blaming poor stats on poor mech choices is obscuring the issue of how good the pilot really is and quite often is simply an excuse to avoid admitting a player is bad.
Lykaon, on 08 July 2019 - 05:36 AM, said:
So I guess I'm an idiot for actually looking at my team and thinking "hey we have two Annihilators and an LRM boat perhaps we shouldn't....."
By all means, if you tell your team not to NASCAR because of it's composition and that's a good choice then do it. However, if your team decides to NASCAR anyway and you ignore this reality and try to do your own thing thinking that it's "tactically superior", then yes, you're an idiot.
A bad plan well followed is often better than a good plan poorly executed
This is the tactical reality of MWO and if you can accept the reality of the situation and adapt to it the better you will do. That's what it means to be a good player and that's what good tactics are in MWO.
I don't like logical posts, as there is a small chance the crop of future entertaining posts may be reduced.
Don't disappoint me guys, disagree with Xiphias, you are right to blame your team for NASCARing, especially on on forums, as this will cause all those NASCARers to recognize their mistake and stop doing it in the future.
Give up with any hope of tactics,team work and any other words that have that effect in qp. Just have fun in qp using your mech trying tons of builds even "bad" non meta ones but most importantly forget about the winning equals fun mentaility or you'll find qp to be hell.
Also don't be a stat warrior only caring that your w/l or kdr or whatever went up or down by .01 percent. No one (but them) give a dam about stats. Unless you're gambling on mwo match outcomes and players as if mwo is like a boxing match or baseball game. My stats suck and get worse every second I pilot an atlas.
Truth.
Qp is the antithesis of teamwork. If pilots want teamwork, there is a queue for that and best to have 11 friends.
I don't like logical posts, as there is a small chance the crop of future entertaining posts may be reduced.
Don't disappoint me guys, disagree with Xiphias, you are right to blame your team for NASCARing, especially on on forums, as this will cause all those NASCARers to recognize their mistake and stop doing it in the future.
Hey sometimes there is a miracle and your team stop nascaring when you call it out.
I don't like logical posts, as there is a small chance the crop of future entertaining posts may be reduced.
Don't disappoint me guys, disagree with Xiphias, you are right to blame your team for NASCARing, especially on on forums, as this will cause all those NASCARers to recognize their mistake and stop doing it in the future.
Forreal. If Nascar stops, all my current counter-nascar moves will become worthless and I'll have to learn new stuff. It's way too late for that.
Forreal. If Nascar stops, all my current counter-nascar moves will become worthless and I'll have to learn new stuff. It's way too late for that.
I personal favor is when I say behind to slow down enemy's come up from behind my team. I slow them down the enemy team just enough to stop them from making it after the slower tail end die but save the team.
I personal favor is when I say behind to slow down enemy's come up from behind my team. I slow they down enemy team just enough to stop them from making it after the slower tail end die but save the team.
This is the easiest trick to winning nascar. If you've got a fast platform with decent dps you can slow down the enemy van. You don't gotta stop it, just slow it down so your own nascar runs faster and gobbles up the enemy.
This is the easiest trick to winning nascar. If you've got a fast platform with decent dps you can slow down the enemy van. You don't gotta stop it, just slow it down so your own nascar runs faster and gobbles up the enemy.
Yup it sucks but sometimes I make the sacrifice for greater good...
One thing I would like to add is that people aren't dumb. They gravitate towards what works. If NASCAR was such a complete failure of sense it would not be done. In fact on maps where it doesn't make sense, you don't see it nearly as much.
Mining Collective is a great example. On the surface Mining Collective is the perfect NASCARing map. It's got this central feature for everyone to run around, and yet that isn't the go-to plan. Instead, it's usually a race to fight over and control the central platform. People will do this without prompting because teams that do this almost always win. It's only when one side fails to take the center that they try to circle around. Unlike other maps, the central platform is highly defensible and only way to assault it is up narrow ramps.
If you have some awesome tactic for a certain map/mode that defeats NASCAR, then why aren't you taking advantage of it? If it's truly a winning tactic, you have an edge over most teams you face. I have zero attachment to NASCAR except for the fact that it usually work on several maps. If you want to change the tactical meta on certain maps and prove it works (by winning a lot), I'd happily embrace it.
One thing I would like to add is that people aren't dumb. They gravitate towards what works. If NASCAR was such a complete failure of sense it would not be done. In fact on maps where it doesn't make sense, you don't see it nearly as much.
Mining Collective is a great example. On the surface Mining Collective is the perfect NASCARing map. It's got this central feature for everyone to run around, and yet that isn't the go-to plan. Instead, it's usually a race to fight over and control the central platform. People will do this without prompting because teams that do this almost always win. It's only when one side fails to take the center that they try to circle around. Unlike other maps, the central platform is highly defensible and only way to assault it is up narrow ramps.
If you have some awesome tactic for a certain map/mode that defeats NASCAR, then why aren't you taking advantage of it? If it's truly a winning tactic, you have an edge over most teams you face. I have zero attachment to NASCAR except for the fact that it usually work on several maps. If you want to change the tactical meta on certain maps and prove it works (by winning a lot), I'd happily embrace it.
I would say Canyon Network and Hibernal Rift win the award for most nascary. I wouldn't call nascar a meta more a thing that happens when mechs try to rotate to try and get shots. I have never seen a planned nascar they always happen organically.
This is the easiest trick to winning nascar. If you've got a fast platform with decent dps you can slow down the enemy van. You don't gotta stop it, just slow it down so your own nascar runs faster and gobbles up the enemy.
Usually called squirrel chasing, regardless of mech size. Helps when there is a lot of terrain then pulling most of the team, especially the heavier mechs, to you, away from their circular motion. Usually when I am caught out like that I make the best of it, weaving in and out of terrain and not allowing the entire team to get a bead on you at once, causing the other team to get strung out. What is even nicer, even though you may not get any actual kill shots, ending up with 1-2 KMDD..
2
PhoenixFire55, on 12 July 2019 - 12:32 AM, said:
