Lykaon, on 05 July 2019 - 10:02 PM, said:
I could write you reams of pages on actual tactics execution of manuvers use of defilade proper techniques for wheeling a turn to present optimized fire lanes how to maximize concentration of fire and all that but at the end of the day we are taking about MWO quick play and I am attempting to argue with someone who thinks go fast turn left shoot repeat is the height of expertese.
Writing reams of pages on tactics doesn't mean you are good or tactical. It makes you an armchair general. You know what the best test of tactics is? The battlefield. If you have a brilliant tactic and it repeatedly doesn't work, guess what? Your tactic is bad.
Want to prove you tactical prowess? Carry teams in solo queue or put together a team and play competitive. Let your results prove your tactics are sound.
Quote
If I cared to I could play the game in the solo group queue and build a mech and technique that optimized my ability to farm stats while running in a circle around Theta on Canyon or HPG or Caustic (or any of the NASCAR track maps) But I prefer to not to do the same idiotic repetitive thing better than other people who do the same repetitive stupid thing.
The "if I cared I could be good" is a pretty common refrain from those that can't. No one is going to believe you unless you actually demonstrate it. Talk is cheap.
Quote
The whole point is...
A player in quick play solo queue does not choose their team composition the match maker does.
Correct.
Quote
A player who chooses the NASCAR "tactic" without any consideration of the team composition is essentially and figuratively flipping a coin.
Most players aren't choosing any tactic (yes, nascar is a valid tactic), they are simply reacting or focusing on what is ahead of them.
Quote
Did the match maker provide your team with mechs that can commit to pursuit combat? Or are you committing to a "tactic" that places your team composition at a disadvantage? if you do commit to an action that suits your team composition poorly then are you playing well? Personal stats may look good but are you actually "good" at strategy or just good at exploiting idiocy?
Being less stupid and succeeding is not the same as being a solid tactical thinker.
I would prefer not to play to be king of the idiots and have excellent Jarl's stats. I would prefer to try to out think other humans. But at the end of the day you are right this is MWo and a lone player or a pair of players can't do much against the tide of NASCAR twerps who would resign their sense of self agency for a matchmaker decided outcome.
Taking whatever the matchmaker gives you and most successfully using it to get wins is what defines good tactics. If it doesn't get results it's not a good tactic and you aren't a solid tactical thinker. You wouldn't expect a group of untrained people to execute a complicated synchronized maneuver that required precise timing to be effective, it would be a disaster. Instead you choose the tactics that best take advantage of what you have, something simply that the group can execute.
If half your team is going to nascar no matter what then the best tactic for the team might be to have the rest of the team follow along. A grouped team is usually better than a split one. It becomes the best tactic in the real world situation with the resources you have.
Lykaon, on 06 July 2019 - 05:30 AM, said:
My consideration is that what qualifies as skill these days is in essence stat padding. By intent or by action being "good" at MWo no longer involves have a head for tactics or strategy.
If someone tears of at best speed to begin a rotation without thought of their team's composition they are effectively playing solo. There is no intent to incorperate any team strengths or compensate for any team weaknesses the only intent is to do well for themselves...AKA stat padding.
As long as they are able to win the match they are making the right tactical decision. I often play lights, I'm pretty decent at it. I usually gamble that I can kill the enemy assaults faster than they can kill my assaults. If I can that's a net win for my team, it's a tactical choice. I could run back and try to defend my assaults, but I find that most of the time the good ones can keep up and don't need help, and the bad ones that do aren't worth helping (I could do more damage in the time it takes to save them than they would contribute after being saved).
Tactics adapt to the situation to give the best chance at winning. Sacrificing half of the team can be a solid tactical decision. If you want to see complex tactics in action you should play competitive, that's where people actually practice and learn specific tactics.
Quote
Being "good" and having the highly valued Jarl's stats does not mean an individual has any talent tactically,all it takes is having sufficent mechlab skills to not build trash and the ability to effectively pilot the non-trash build while running in a circle predictably chasing some other player who is also running in a circle.
Being successful at doing the same predictable thing against other players doing the identical thing isn't actually being "good" with strategy because NASCAR removes this aspect. Players continue to NASCAR even when it would lead to a loss. The players do not adapt to a change in situation they simply continue to rotate. This is not utilizing tactics.
You misunderstand what good players do. Good players adapt how they are playing to what their team and the enemy team is doing. Holding a strong position is good, unless the rest of your team decides to move away from it, then it becomes a bad idea. Good players/tactics are adaptive, that's how they are able to consistently get good results.
Your rigid adherence to "good tactics" is making your performance (likely your team's performance) worse because you wont adapt to the reality that is on the battlefield. You're like the officer ordering a doomed infantry charge because it's the "right tactic" despite it being the completely wrong choice in the actual situation. What's good on paper =/= what's good in practice.
Quote
When a team wins NASCAR by and large the factors contributing to the win are not decided by the players on a whole these contributing factors were decided by the match maker.
And sometimes one of the contributing factors is what team has the players who are best at running in a circle and shooting bad guys while not getting shot in the back.
What these "good" players are not grasping is they have reduced their "skills" to being a randomly assigned victory factor plugged in by a matchmaker.
And if you have a random team that chooses not to nascar and that's how you win, isn't that also just a randomly assigned victory based on a matchmaker? If you are a good player you will win more matches over time. Not because of the matchmaker, but because your contribution to the matches you are in.
Your personal contribution is that your "good tactics" result in your teams losing more often then they win. In my world that makes them bad tactics.
2
