448 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

FRAGTAST1C, on 08 August 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

Are you also the kind of person that says, "Prove to me Scientifically that Love exists"?

Love is a battlefield?

Also, this.

Edited by Mystere, 11 August 2019 - 12:08 PM.

[Bombast]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 12 August 2019 - 01:53 PM.
inappropriate reference, replies removed

[Mystere]

Y E O N N E, on 08 August 2019 - 07:19 PM, said:

You definitively stated that concentration of firepower is as important as the armor pool.

What you are hoping to achieve, here, is to see if you can sucker somebody into sinking a disproportionate amount of time to proof a scenario whose reliability has already been validated by demonstration for years. All so you can then get some smug satisfaction from flippantly dismissing this model in the end because the model has some error (no matter how trivial) and because you get a kick out of toying with people who are passionate about a game that you care so little for.

So I say again: you first.

People are explicitly claiming that armor pooling/sharing is the most important thing. However, a cursory look at some military manuals show explicit mention of concentration of fire, massed fire, or force concentration. Also, a cursory search on those same terms result in definitions from places like the War College and the DoD, to name a few. That's just on the first page.

Also, with regard to MWO, during the heyday () of the Lords (remember them?), the talk was more about focused fire and less about armor sharing. (If my memory serves me right)

And so, just to see what is "out there in the wild", I also did a simple search on "armor sharing" (via Bing, Google, and Yahoo). Lo and behold, the first "relevant" place it is mentioned in all 3 search engines is in … drum roll please … the MWO forums.

Hence, I am interested in knowing why some people say the former is the most important.

Finally, if by "toying with people" you mean, "******* with their brains", then yes I am guilty as charged. You should know that by now.

Prototelis, on 08 August 2019 - 07:49 PM, said:

Why, you don't know how > < works?

In video games or in the real world?

Bombast, on 08 August 2019 - 12:00 PM, said:

To put it another way, you want to share your enemy's attention ...

Now that is a better way of putting things.

Edited by Mystere, 11 August 2019 - 01:10 PM.

[Mystere]

Verilligo, on 09 August 2019 - 06:51 AM, said:

So from what I gather, the argument present is that taking damage (not armor sharing) does not drive winning a match, only dealing damage or gaining some percentage of whatever the objective has to be. As of current, the focus has been on explaining that armor sharing is NOT damage taking, it's presenting your armor as an available resource for taking while also dealing damage to a single target alongside your team. But let's presume for the moment that what we're trying to do is show that damage taking and not dealing damage can drive a win.

Let us assume that we have three mechs, two on one side and a single enemy mech. Mech 1 (friendly) and Mech 3 (enemy) are heavily damaged, with Mech 1 being essentially one shot from death. Mech 2 (friendly) is very damaged, but not necessarily a one shot, however it is completely out of ammo and thus unable to contribute to damage dealing. Mech 3 does not know that Mech 2 is out of ammo, nor is he completely certain of damage % on either Mech 1 or Mech 2. Mech 2 has the option of either being hit and likely assuredly dying or leaving to gain % on the objective and there is uncertainty if winning by objective is still possible. If Mech 2 leaves, the fight will be Mech 1 versus Mech 3, a fight which will almost certainly end with Mech 1 dying. If Mech 2 stays and expends armor by fooling Mech 3 into thinking it is the greater danger, however, there is a very good chance that Mech 1 can get in enough shots to kill Mech 3.

Is this not a case where damage taking is better at driving a win than going for the objective? Yes, Mech 1 will actually perform the win by destroying Mech 3, but it requires that Mech 2 quite possibly dies in the process.

The lesson here is to not use ammo-dependent weapons.

[Mystere]

JediPanther, on 10 August 2019 - 08:50 AM, said:

If I want to "share" armor I'll just trade or sell it to other players. I have an impressive stockpile of is armor from striping and selling mechs at low low rates. I'd even trade it off for is lrm ammo and lrm launchers.

Spoken like a true mercenary driven only by capitalism.

[Khobai]

Vellron2005, on 11 August 2019 - 08:27 AM, said:

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..

youre missing the point of armor sharing. armor sharing is ONLY employed in situations when someone on your team HAS to take the hits in order for the rest of your team to do damage. If your team is using armor sharing as a tactic its because the alternative of doing damage without getting hit has already been eliminated as an option.

obviously if you can do damage without getting hit in return thats better. but that also generally requires someone on the enemy team screwing up enough to allow you to hit them without retaliation. that might happen in quickplay potatohunt but usually doesnt happen in higher level play. armor sharing is the tactic you use when getting hit is entirely unavoidable.

and again focus firing and good target priority are just as important as armor sharing. the team that does all of those things the best will be the victor.

Edited by Khobai, 11 August 2019 - 02:04 PM.

[Mystere]

Feral Clown, on 10 August 2019 - 11:46 AM, said:

Kcom.

... they know they have to spread damage and properly rotate out of the front line ...

Hmm. Methinks you are ignoring the other, (arguably) better half of what KCom does.



Hey Pat! Are you still around? You might have to chime in for this one.

[Void Angel]

OK, let me interject here, before someone else starts misquoting Sun Tzu. Military manuals - whether from a modern military or ancient China - should be read with a grain of salt when applying them to MWO, or any game. Some of the principles are applicable, but some are not - or, as is often the case when people try to cite the Art of War, they apply to the strategic or operational levels of warfare, when MWO (sadly) deals only with tactics. Similarly, those works are written for a specific set of tactical, operational, and strategic circumstances (to say nothing of politics!) and this may cause them to be inapplicable to MWO. Finally, the psychology of soldiers in combat (and thus what you can do tactically) are thankfully far different than the gamer population - even a game like MWO with an above-average veteran composition in its player base. So while we can examine these works for principles that we can then apply to our gaming, they are emphatically not authoritative for gaming in their own right.

That said, however, we can apply some of our Von Clausewitz to MWO, specifically the aforementioned principles of massed fires and concentration of force. But we can also apply another of Von Clausewitz's principles - tactical dispersion.

Now, I haven't been in any tactical discussions on MWO for a while; I've drifted to other games since my computer developed framerate issues. But this thread caught my eye, and sure enough there's someone appealing to Sun Tzu, so... here goes.

The OP is committing an unintentional error at the core of his logical process by ignoring an important logical principle: if A->B, and B-> C, then A->C. Over and over again when defending his thesis, I see him asserting that sharing armor does nothing to satisfy the enemy destruction win conditions, and as such does not "drive wins." This is flat-out incorrect: sharing armor leads to the preservation of firepower; firepower leads to the destruction of enemy 'mechs. Thus, A->C. Similarly, the base capture and resource point win conditions from modes like Conquest are weighted by the number of 'mechs you have, and since firepower allows you to reduce the number of enemy 'mechs, it can help drive wins even in that environment - thus both armor sharing and active murder help in those modes. Targeted violence is not the only way to win, which is the point of those modes, but the OP touched on this point too, so it's worth the mention.

One thing that I've seen neither side of this debate question is that MWO combat is an attrition game - and this is correct. The difference of opinion seems to be how to value the concept of armor sharing, with some people claiming that it's the most important concern, and others that it's less important, or (in the OP's case) not important at all:

The last position is the easiest to refute: armor-sharing is the team-level of torso twisting to spread damage across multiple 'mech components to preserve a 'mech's weapons and mobility, and should be done by the team for exactly the same reasons. Damage is like water: you can drown in a river, but getting a little wet won't kill you. But by the same token, armor sharing is valuable only if it contributes to winning; the OP got that right. In Von Clausewitz's terms, this is equivalent to tactical dispersion - spreading your forces out when you're not actually attacking, so that the enemy's attacks can't do as much damage. As I warned you before, it doesn't quite translate into MWO directly, but the principle can be applied: in each case, you're using the disposition of your forces to limit the enemy's ability to deliver a decisive blow.

Which brings us to our other Von Clausewitzicisms (that's a word now; you're welcome:) Massed fires and concentration of force. The direct application of these principles is well-known to any MWO veteran: get as many 'mechs as you can into a fight with as few 'mechs as possible, and mass your fires on the same enemy whenever you can - preferably the same part of that enemy. Von Clausewitz translates very well to these aspects of MWO combat for a very good reason: Von Clausewitz is writing about attrition warfare, and MWO is all about attrition - both of 'mechs and of weapon systems. The people who value armor sharing as a top priority misunderstand the nature of attrition - you have to damage the other side in order to attrit them. Armor sharing isn't the top priority; it's useful only since it supports the team's damage output. If you're thinking it's the most important thing, you're misunderstanding the game - just as no one ever won a progression WoW raid with all healers (no, not even Valithria Dreamwalker,) damaging the enemy has to be your first priority.

In short, armor sharing is important - but it's important because it contributes to the preservation of firepower to facilitate MWO's core attrition dynamic.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

PS: all quotes by Ayn Rand should be rendered in Comic Sans, and with FuNkY CaPitALiZATioN, to lend them the gravitas they deserve.

[Bombast]

Void Angel, on 11 August 2019 - 02:06 PM, said:

PS: all quotes by Ayn Rand should be rendered in Comic Sans, and with FuNkY CaPitALiZATioN, to lend them the gravitas they deserve.

Ayn Rand said:

THe w0rsT eVIl That y0U Can d0, pSYChoLOGicalLy, Is tO laUgh At yOUrseLf. tHat mEanS spiTTing iN yOUr 0wn fAce.

Well I'll be darned, it works!

Edited by Bombast, 11 August 2019 - 02:28 PM.

[Prototelis]

Mystere, on 11 August 2019 - 12:49 PM, said:

People are explicitly claiming that armor pooling/sharing is the most important thing. However, a cursory look at some military manuals show explicit mention of concentration of fire, massed fire, or force concentration. Also, a cursory search on those same terms result in definitions from places like the War College and the DoD, to name a few. That's just on the first page.

1. This is a video game.
2. Guess what you can't do without health pooling (mechs)

[Feral Clown]

Omniseed, on 11 August 2019 - 08:49 AM, said:

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!

ETA-I think we actually lost that one handily




Yeah we got our eggs cracked

Love that Gilgamecc guy.

[JediPanther]

Mystere, on 11 August 2019 - 01:34 PM, said:

Spoken like a true mercenary driven only by capitalism.

As long as I don't have to play that life game i'm alright. A player market for mwo stuff to trade or custom decals by players to other players would have been neat but I've spent too much time on wowarcraft and swtor. Mwo is just my robot shooty game. We'd all be rich if mwo had that rl auction house options to convert mc into your local currency but every game I can think of that had one ended badly for every one.

[OmniFail]

Void Angel, on 11 August 2019 - 02:06 PM, said:

The OP is committing an unintentional error at the core of his logical process by ignoring an important logical principle: if A->B, and B-> C, then A->C. Over and over again when defending his thesis, I see him asserting that sharing armor does nothing to satisfy the enemy destruction win conditions, and as such does not "drive wins." This is flat-out incorrect: sharing armor leads to the preservation of firepower; firepower leads to the destruction of enemy 'mechs. Thus, A->C. Similarly, the base capture and resource point win conditions from modes like Conquest are weighted by the number of 'mechs you have, and since firepower allows you to reduce the number of enemy 'mechs, it can help drive wins even in that environment - thus both armor sharing and active murder help in those modes. Targeted violence is not the only way to win, which is the point of those modes, but the OP touched on this point too, so it's worth the mention.

I am not ignoring an important logical principle. I am not making an error. What I am doing is only accepting the direct cause of an effect that is linked to win conditions. Because when we start to accept indirect things such as the actions, we take leading up to the direct causation we are opening our selves up to all kinds of crazy assertions.

In your demonstration you add a chain of letters that represent the chain of actions. You then insert armor sharing in that chain and assert that it is part of that chain and thus drives wins.

By using this same logic I could say that because my dog needed to use the bathroom and because I got up and let him out side to do his business, while forgetting I was in cue. Only to return at the end of the match to find my mech fresh, all other team members dead, only two surviving heavily damaged enemy mechs, that where easily dispatched. I could then assert that. Because I shared no armor and that because I watched the dog’s poop, that not armor sharing and watching dogs poop drives wins.

Furthermore, you can falsify armor sharing as a driver of wins by removing it from the equation to see if the win can still occur.

For example, I propose a two mech problem for you to solve to support your false armor sharing ideology:

Solaris 1v1 matches are won by destroying the enemy mech.
Solaris 1v1 matches have no teammates to share armor with.
No Solaris 1v1 matches are won because the loss of armor.
Therefore, Solaris 1v1 matches are not won by losing or sharing armor; but only though the destruction of the enemy mech.

Armor sharing does not drive wins.

My argument and example are really damming.

Here this is for you:

“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.” ~Ayn Rand

Edited by OmniFail, 12 August 2019 - 01:11 PM.

[Prototelis]

Solaris 1v1 matches are won by three things;

Running the best mech
Soaking/spreading incoming damage
Delivering precise damage


Either way; a poor example that doesn't hold up when there are more mechs on the field.

In a 2v2, the team that loses is almost always the one that loses a mech first.
In the team game, health pooling absolutely drives wins.

There is no fire power pool without health pool. When you lose health pool; you lose mechs. When you lose mechs, you lose firepower.

Its a pretty ******* simple concept dude.

Edited by Prototelis, 12 August 2019 - 01:40 PM.

[OmniFail]

Prototelis, on 12 August 2019 - 01:40 PM, said:

Solaris 1v1 matches are won by three things;

Running the best mech
Soaking/spreading incoming damage
Delivering precise damage


Either way; a poor example that doesn't hold up when there are more mechs on the field.

In a 2v2, the team that loses is almost always the one that loses a mech first.
In the team game, health pooling absolutely drives wins.

There is no fire power pool without health pool. When you lose health pool; you lose mechs. When you lose mechs, you lose firepower.

Its a pretty ******* simple concept dude.

The man read my post and then proceed to demonstrate that the man lacked facilities to understand my post.

The man is a fool.

[Prototelis]

I understand your post completely; you're wrong. Cute anecdote tho.

[Bombast]

OmniFail, on 12 August 2019 - 01:07 PM, said:

...Solaris 1v1...

My argument and example are really damming.

They are pretty damning. The moment you brought up Solaris, the last shred of theoretical, intellectual integrity you may have possible had evaporated into the aether.

Quote

“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.” ~Ayn Rand

I think we all are staring directly into the glaringly evident. It's bright neon and flashing pink.

Edited by Bombast, 12 August 2019 - 02:08 PM.

[OmniFail]

Hear Ye, Hear Ye

Armor sharing can be falsified armor as a driver of wins by removing it from the equation to see if the win can still occur.

Solaris 1v1 matches are won by destroying the enemy mech.
Solaris 1v1 matches have no teammates to share armor with.
No Solaris 1v1 matches are won because the loss of armor.
Therefore, Solaris 1v1 matches are not won by losing or sharing armor; but only though the destruction of the enemy mech.

The Cult of Armor sharing must accept or falsify.

No amount of shame sharing will save you from your wrongness, you must move as one and focus fire on your problem.

What say thee?

[Prototelis]

lol.

Solaris 1v1 matches are won by;
Running the best mech
Soaking/spreading incoming damage
Delivering precise damage

Either way; this has little to do with proving your point that health pooling doesn't drive wins in the TEAM game.


You grossly misunderstand how the game works. Stop hiding; maybe you'll win more.

[Bombast]

OmniFail, on 12 August 2019 - 02:27 PM, said:

What say thee?

The example can't be used because in a 1v1 scenerio, Armor Sharing between mechs is an impossibility. One may as well argue that Armor Sharing doesn't work in Chess, so it doesn't work in MWO.

But if you insist, consider this: You can't share armor between mechs in Solaris, but you can share armor between components with torso twisting. Would you like to ask one of the nice, non-potato players in this thread if torso twisting can be useful in Solaris?

What does Ayn Rand have to say about someone who constantly brings up false examples and faulty reasoning for arguments that person knows they've already lost?