The6thMessenger, on 10 August 2019 - 09:51 AM, said:
But if that's the case, armor sharing does drive wins in most cases, and it's only an unlikely (though possible) scenario that armor-sharing doesn't drive wins, because in most cases you take damage in pretty much in every game, and it's only unlikely to not take damage even it's possible. So yes, Armor Sharing drives win, most of the time.
A lot of people try their luck in Lotto to win Jackpots, or to gamble their money on roulettes. But while there are those that do win, chances are you'd financially ruin yourself. You could tell yourself and other people that it's possible that you could win the jackpot, and you'd be right -- it is possible no matter how unlikely, but it doesn't make it any less stupid that you'd bet your entire life-savings there.
Which is why you share armor so your team wouldn't die before your objective is completed.
What this argument lacks that Bombast may have is a correlation between armor sharing and and the potential to destroy more mechs though focus of more firepower. which actually would drive wins. I will still have to check his conclusion.
See the thing is spreading the armor around though some unrealistic blitzkrieg leap frog maneuver is actually useless unless they are destroying mechs. This method from watching battles at corners and the stupid tunnels demonstrate a diminished ability to focus fire.
Then there is the presentation of armor as opposed to the shot blocking/peeking turn method. This is much more realistic on the battle field and facilitates the focus of fire much better. But, in this situation drop callers can call independent mechs as targets and focus them down. In this case the focused down mech has very little chance of doing any sharing with anybody.
While the leap frog method benefits from a greater ability to spread the damage around it greatly diminishes the ability to focus fire and seems that it is just postponing the inevitable because of its diminished capacity to destroy mechs. The presentation method has a greater ability of focusing fire but greatly diminished ability to share armor against focused fire.
Because of these factors logic alone may not be able to prove a coloration between armor sharing and increased ability to fulfill the destroy mechs condition. There may need to be empirical data.
It is a false premise to categorise moves in a game this way. Any move you make in a game moves you either closer, further or not at all in relation to the chances of winning or losing.
If there is a situation where increasing exposure/drawing aggro/sharing armour (these are interchangeable tactical terms in MWO as I understand it) then brings you closer to a winning position then you can by definition "drive wins" by doing so. Likewise there should be situations where sacrificing mechs for a positional advantage brings you closer to a winning position, especially if using alternate wincons, so even suicide can be a winning move in the right situation.
Compare to chess. Capturing pieces is not part of the win condition in chess, and neither is having your pieces captured. And yet both capturing and sacrificing pieces can be winning moves in chess, in the sense of gaining positional advantage, tempo advantage and material advantage that increases your chances of delivering checkmate. By your definition only checkmating moves would be considered as "driving wins" in chess, which is absurd. It's equally absurd to say that only moves that are directly involved with the final win condition are "driving wins" in MWO.
This is true for ALL games (at least all games that involve winning or losing), and your attempt to put certain kind of moves in a "driving wins" category as opposed to others is nonsensical because all kinds of moves can be part of a winning or losing sequence.
It is a false premise to categorise moves in a game this way. Any move you make in a game moves you either closer, further or not at all in relation to the chances of winning or losing.
If there is a situation where increasing exposure/drawing aggro/sharing armour (these are interchangeable tactical terms in MWO as I understand it) then brings you closer to a winning position then you can by definition "drive wins" by doing so. Likewise there should be situations where sacrificing mechs for a positional advantage brings you closer to a winning position, especially if using alternate wincons, so even suicide can be a winning move in the right situation.
Compare to chess. Capturing pieces is not part of the win condition in chess, and neither is having your pieces captured. And yet both capturing and sacrificing pieces can be winning moves in chess, in the sense of gaining positional advantage, tempo advantage and material advantage that increases your chances of delivering checkmate. By your definition only checkmating moves would be considered as "driving wins" in chess, which is absurd. It's equally absurd to say that only moves that are directly involved with the final win condition are "driving wins" in MWO.
This is true for ALL games (at least all games that involve winning or losing), and your attempt to put certain kind of moves in a "driving wins" category as opposed to others is nonsensical because all kinds of moves can be part of a winning or losing sequence.
Pretty much this. As a game, it's a closed system. Everything in the system is designed to elicit an outcome, (+,- or =). Every allowed action is driving towards a win or loss within the system, end capped with a timer to force an end state.
Yes, it is an action that raises the potential of a (+) end state for those who employ it (evidence in comp/GQ). Does it happen in QP, sometimes. Does it help? Yes, because usually those teams using it in QP, also know that focusing fire is the other part of the equation to winning and hence do both. Armor sharing happens in a smart deathball.
LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.
Posted 10 August 2019 - 04:13 PM
OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 12:02 PM, said:
What this argument lacks that Bombast may have is a correlation between armor sharing and and the potential to destroy more mechs though focus of more firepower. which actually would drive wins. I will still have to check his conclusion.
"may have" "still have to check his conclusion"?
Lol, pathetic.
OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 12:02 PM, said:
See the thing is spreading the armor around though some unrealistic blitzkrieg leap frog maneuver is actually useless unless they are destroying mechs. This method from watching battles at corners and the stupid tunnels demonstrate a diminished ability to focus fire.
Then there is the presentation of armor as opposed to the shot blocking/peeking turn method. This is much more realistic on the battle field and facilitates the focus of fire much better. But, in this situation drop callers can call independent mechs as targets and focus them down. In this case the focused down mech has very little chance of doing any sharing with anybody.
While the leap frog method benefits from a greater ability to spread the damage around it greatly diminishes the ability to focus fire and seems that it is just postponing the inevitable because of its diminished capacity to destroy mechs. The presentation method has a greater ability of focusing fire but greatly diminished ability to share armor against focused fire.
Oh now you're on what is "likely"? Nevermind how unlikely it is to complete a match without taking a scratch.
"leap frogging" is just one of the ways for spreading damage, don't get too hung up on it. Likewise damage is precisely the thing that destroys a mech, please tell us another way to destroy a mech without involving damage?
Falling damages your legs, overheating damages your internals -- damage damage damage, it's everywhere.
OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 12:02 PM, said:
Because of these factors logic alone may not be able to prove a coloration between armor sharing and increased ability to fulfill the destroy mechs condition. There may need to be empirical data.
Oh wow, great philosopher into great scientist.
Heres what you could do, we could take a Sample, and see the relationship of winrate and survival rate.
There, you could see a clear trend of higher winrate with higher survival rate. I know I don't have great stats cause I'm pretty reckless and a light main, and brawler main. But even I know what works and what doesn't.
OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 11:40 AM, said:
You cannot win by taking damage in skirmish matches you can only win by destroying mechs
You wrongly think that Armor-Sharing is merely about losing armor, but rather it's actually prolonging the life of your team. And that is exactly the problem of your thinking, why you can't properly conclude things.
Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 August 2019 - 04:13 PM.
How did this last 6 pages. It's not effing rocket science.
Armor damage don't compromise performance. Structure damage compromises performance. So armor should always be given up first. The more.damage your team can shunt to armor instead of internals, the longer your mechs stay effective on the battlefield.
Two teams can trade the same amount of damage and one can still have all 12 mechs while the other is 4 mechs down. That is something like a 50% firepower advantage which will only get worse as it snowballs.
Even a frigging child can understand the concept of armor sharing.
You definitively stated that concentration of firepower is as important as the armor pool.
hes not wrong. because armor sharing and concentration of firepower are literally reverse sides of the same coin.
when you armor share you make it harder for the enemy team to focus fire a single mech by rotating damaged mechs into the back line where theyre harder to hit.
conversely when you concentrate firepower on a single mech until its destroyed you make it harder for the enemy team to armor share. similarly if you prioritize killing damaged mechs when you see them you reduce the overall effectiveness of armor sharing.
teams absolutely need to do both in order to win.
a team that only armor shares but doesnt focus fire will lose every time against a team that both armor shares and focus fires. Because focus firing and good targeting priority are the counterplays to armor sharing.
And no its not effing rocket science to know you should try to keep your own damaged mechs alive while prioritizing killing damaged enemy mechs.
On an individual level, focusing fire on an individual component is powerful. Defensive torso twisting mitigates that.
On a team level, focusing fire on a single mech is powerful. Armor sharing mitigates that.
Armor sharing is the team-sized equivalent to torso twisting.
And for what it's worth, I don't think OP is in any way interested in debate at this point. He came into the forums thinking he could shake it up with some hot new take and got shut down. Instead of just taking the loss, he's doubling down and shifting goalposts to try to save face. I don't think there's any point in engaging him any longer.
LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.
Posted 11 August 2019 - 07:00 AM
Kaeb Odellas, on 11 August 2019 - 02:27 AM, said:
And for what it's worth, I don't think OP is in any way interested in debate at this point. He came into the forums thinking he could shake it up with some hot new take and got shut down. Instead of just taking the loss, he's doubling down and shifting goalposts to try to save face. I don't think there's any point in engaging him any longer.
I know right? He's playing high-and-mighty with philosophy and syllogism, and acts like the arbiter of reason.
Pathetic.
Khobai, on 11 August 2019 - 01:04 AM, said:
hes not wrong. because armor sharing and concentration of firepower are literally reverse sides of the same coin.
when you armor share you make it harder for the enemy team to focus fire a single mech by rotating damaged mechs into the back line where theyre harder to hit.
conversely when you concentrate firepower on a single mech until its destroyed you make it harder for the enemy team to armor share. similarly if you prioritize killing damaged mechs when you see them you reduce the overall effectiveness of armor sharing.
teams absolutely need to do both in order to win.
a team that only armor shares but doesnt focus fire will lose every time against a team that both armor shares and focus fires. Because focus firing and good targeting priority are the counterplays to armor sharing.
And no its not effing rocket science to know you should try to keep your own damaged mechs alive while prioritizing killing damaged enemy mechs.
Well, here's the thing, while aim mitigates torso-twisting to spread, realistically not every aim is perfect, likewise the component you're trying to focus isn't necessarily presented such as being shielded or just the different angle.
Same instance with armor-sharing, realistically not every team has the capacity of focus-firing at all instances due to different reasons.
You think just because we could aim, the enemy doesn't need to torso twist because we'll hit the same component regardless? The problem with the OP is assuming that matches happens perfectly all the time and in a vacuum, but realistically it's just not.
Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 August 2019 - 07:07 AM.
LocationIn the mechbay, telling the techs to put extra LRM ammo on.
Posted 11 August 2019 - 08:27 AM
OmniFail, on 08 August 2019 - 11:21 AM, said:
Does armor sharing drive wins?
MWO matches are won by destroying enemy mechs.
MWO matches are won by timing out with the most kills.
MWO matches are won by destroying enemy bases.
The best way to destroy mechs and bases is to focus fire.
MWO matches are won capturing enemy bases.
MWO matches are won by collecting resources.
The best way to collect resources and capture enemy bases is with speed and positioning. No MWO matches are won by losing armor.
Therefore, MWO matches are won by focused firepower, speed, positioning, and not though the loss of armor.
I have seen games won without the loss of armor though base capture and resource collection. Although I have never seen it, it seems theoretically possible that an MWO match can be won by the destruction of all enemy mechs without the winning team losing any armor.
While I still recommend that the main force always stick together and position themselves well to better focus fire and the light force do as well, in such a way that they can capitalize on their speed and ability to position themselves; it appears to me that the concept of armor sharing does not drive wins because it facilitates the loss of armor.
Think with your tiny ape brain, before responding with your lizard brain!
Edit Log: Spelling. Changed "lose" to "loss"
Finally someone who gets what I've been saying to people for years..
Armor sharing is inferior to not getting hit at all, and to killing your target before it has a chance to even see what's going on..
Two UAC10s and a UAC5, well forward in the rock garden of River City, it as an exciting seven minutes for sure, and put my team in a great place to clean up!
the real key to victory is that everyone needs to fight at the same time. while this behavior is loosely correlated to sharing armor, its not the specific thing that makes you win. it helps, but as part of the bigger picture. there is concentrated firepower, isolating targets (divide and conquer), helping your team mates not die (rather than say use them so you can fire an extra alpha at the target for marginal gains and then die to a cored out assault mech because you didnt work together). had a game where that happened today. i was in the middle of a 5 mech push into 2 mechs standing in the open. total sitting ducks. we got into firing range and 3 of them ducked into cover and watched the brawl which we lost, and then they lost and the rest of the team, who were after an "easy kill" piranha also lost.
another example would be like the gung-ho medium-light aggressive push that often starts up a nascar are attacking without the benefit of a full team which is just as bad as waiting for the guy in the 40 kph assault mech to catch up without the benefit of knowing the maps well, all while the enemy take the good positions. and it doesn't help much with half the team being afk at the start of a match. or how you can take a 50kph slowpoke and still be the first one to exit the drop zone or reach the front. i mean in a realistic military scenario half the players in this game would be shot for cowardice, courtmarshaled for friendly fire or be forcibly demoted to civilian for conduct unbecoming a tuber.
Finally someone who gets what I've been saying to people for years..
Armor sharing is inferior to not getting hit at all, and to killing your target before it has a chance to even see what's going on..
But noooo... LURMS BAD!
Whoa dude hold your horses. Omni himself has said that he is disapproving of hiding and not staying with the team, but I imagine you didn't bother to read the thread before you jumped in.
Hiding behind a rock and not staying with the team is absolutely bad and so much so PGI literally changed the mechanics to discourage it.
On the plus side for those that do enjoy lurms, they are more effective than they have ever been for those playing them properly.
So, I told Bombast that I would analyze and respond to his argument and in this post, I intend to do just that. But before I respond to his post, I wish to address my own foolishness on different points and comment on the nature of other posters in this thread.
My own foolishness
I have made two foolish mistakes during this topic. If I cannot own up to the foolish things that I personally feel where foolish then I lose credibility with myself and others.
When I engaged Bombast on the topic of whether or not, we actually use armor sharing in reality during play, Bombast accused me of moving the goal posts and pointed out that that subject was an entirely different conversation. On this account he is correct, and I am at fault. Furthermore, after a survey of game play and some self-analysis we do indeed use armor sharing at least by the loose undefined measures that players use to define “armor sharing.” In this fact I was also incorrect. While the blame ultimately falls on me, I do have to admit that my thoughts where distracted by Prototelis baseless character attacks and nonconstructive comments.
The other foolish mistake that I made was to make this tread in the first place. This is not because of the content and not because any out come of the discussion. The reason that it was foolish to make this post in the first place was because, my critics will never accept my argument and I will bore my supporters with reiterations that provide no new content to them.
The nature of the posters.
After the proposing of my argument I had many types of people respond to my post. Among these was two in particular that instead of attacking the argument that I had proposed they instead instinctually attacked my character in what could only be described as an animal gut reaction post. Both accused me of hiding (cowardice). One used the familiar quote system to insinuate that I was mentally ill. One I told to provide evidence to prove my cowardice and the other one I went and cried to the mod, like little girl, to have the post removed.
The proof of my cowardice that was provided was a link to my Jarls MWO statistics. With a overall 38% survival rate, 1.50 K/D ratio, and a W/L of 1.08, My analysis can be summarized as being a average player that gets kills and has a high probability of dying from being too aggressive; and most likely has a 99.9% seal meat free diet. Maybe other people, that are better with data analysis, would like to weigh in on the matter of my cowardice in relation to the data provided in the evidence cited as a non-biased participant.
The poster whose comments remove is now back, and although, not friendly is an attempting to act like a normal human being. While I am not a psychologist, it seems to me that mood swings of this magnitude are symptomatic of a bi-polar disorder. Which strangely enough is a real mental disorder. Irony and projection bro, I cannot state it enough.
There were a few other posters like these two. But, the majority of posters regardless of their bias one way or another on the subject matter discussed the subject matter by making their own arguments and judgments about the content. While I do not know any of these people personally and admittedly, I have only accepted one friend invite inside the game client the whole 5 years I have played, the only way that I can describe the rest of the posters is to be men of reason. While it may be such a small thing, reason is what separates us from the animals and the mentally ill.
Addressing Bombasts argument
Here is Bombasts argument for reference.
Bombast, on 10 August 2019 - 09:18 AM, said:
Destroying all enemy mechs is a win condition.
Maximizing available firepower assists in destroying all enemy mechs.
The longer a mech lives, the more firepower it can contribute over the span of a match.
A damaged mech that sustains more damage will die. When dead, it can no longer contribute damage.
An undamaged, or lightly damaged, mech can sustain damage without dying. Even if receiving damage it's firepower will still contribute damage.
So if a lightly damaged mechs takes damage instead of a heavily damaged mech, more firepower is preserved for longer, maximizing total match damage.
Thus, even if it's not ideal to lose any armor, if the only options available are to either lose one mech and keep one mech at near full armor, or to have the healthy mech get damaged and have both mechs survive, the later is more desirable and contributes to a win condition, in the absence of other outstanding factors (Such as the mech in danger of dying being an absolute potato, or having already lost most of it's firepower, etc).
Analysis of Bombasts premises
Bombasts premises are too legit to quit. Someone may be able to assail these, but it sure in hell is not me. First Bombast accepts the premises already in play, that he accepts as truth and adopts them into his ideology. The he builds onto them with truths of his own to support his final conclusion. I like how he really pours on the importance of doing damage and accepts some of the horrors of taking damage. Death, disfigurement, diminished damage… It’s sad to think about. On the bright side it is not mental scaring.
Analysis of Bombasts conclusion
Since I was unable to break Bombasts argument by falsifying any of his premises, I really have to bare down on Bombasts arguments conclusion. I broke it down to bit size pieces so we can process them with our tiny ape brains. Let’s check them out.
Thus, even if it's not ideal to lose any armor, if the only options available are to either lose one mech and keep one mech at near full armor, or to have the healthy mech get damaged and have both mechs survive, the later is more desirable and contributes to a win condition, in the absence of other outstanding factors (Such as the mech in danger of dying being an absolute potato, or having already lost most of it's firepower, etc).
O.K. the first thing I am going to do is remove the first part. I’m just going to outright accept it. In fact I would like to comment that it is more than not ideal it leads to death, disfigurement, diminished damage… like I said its really sad. I am also going to accept the last part. I do warn against this kind of thing though it provides too many escape door avenues for both me and Bombast. For the sake of argument we will assume there are no “outstanding factors” (lol). You also provide two scenarios. I don’t think we need both.
That would leave us with: or to have the healthy mech get damaged and have both mechs survive, the latter is more desirable and contributes to a win condition,
Edited Bombast conclusion: Spelling. Changed later to latter.
Verilligo do see this? It’s another three mech problem.
O.K. I got this
The destruction of the last enemy mech, regardless of any of the three mechs that landed the killing blow that is what triggered the winning condition. You said it yourself. Only the destruction of enemy mechs fulfills win conditions. No matter who took what damage it is only the killing strike that mattered. This is all the game considers when determining scoring.
Armor sharing does not dive wins. There is no value in losing armor. It is not ideal, it is not ok.
See both of our #1 premises.
Refer to my #8 premise for clarification of why.
I’m only stomping you kids scenarios with my premises. I’m holding back. I got two scenarios of my own in which I analyze armor sharing in practice, they will feel like horrific bombs when they hit the idea of armor sharing. I affectionately call them Fat Boy and Little Man.
2
The6thMessenger, on 10 August 2019 - 09:51 AM, said:
