448 replies to this topic

[BCAW]

Bombast, on 12 August 2019 - 02:32 PM, said:

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?

With all due respect to you and the other commentators on this post, why are you still trying to argue with the OP? It is clear that this whole thing was a troll post. The OP is basically suggesting that the optimal way to play is to avoid taking any damage, and only deal "free", risk-less damage. Just the type of things you a lot see in tier 5 land (source: am tier 3 scrub, so I see the whole spectrum of player and tactics). Anybody who has made it to tier 3 and up knows that's a good way to lose games.

Besides, given some of the other posts of the OP, he's clearly a big LRM-boating advocate. This is just another one of his attempt to argue that LRM players are the big ape-brained master race, and that reptilian direct-fire users should bow and kiss his feet.

[Bombast]

BCAW, on 12 August 2019 - 02:54 PM, said:

With all due respect to you and the other commentators on this post, why are you still trying to argue with the OP?

Morbid curiosity to see just how far Fail's argument can devolve.

Edited by Bombast, 12 August 2019 - 03:02 PM.

[Sergeant Destroy]

People trying to "win" arguments, especially on the web, always make me chuckle.

[Kubernetes]

It's pretty incredible that people are having this debate in 2019. If you're curious how some people can stay at potato level for years on end, here you go.

These terribads don't actually observe games. They may be piloting in a match, but they don't comprehend what's really unfolding in front of them; rather, they've got a narrative overlay that distorts what they see. Thus "LRMs are good, armor sharing is bad, and I'm an unacknowledged tactical genius."

(The worst is when some dude starts spouting about how he's been around since closed beta-- you just know he's going to be awful because all terribads have is nostalgia about stuff they probably misinterpreted in the first place.)

[Void Angel]

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

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.

Oh good grief, where to begin:

Your "two-mech problem" serves only to demonstrate that you don't understand your subject - or my objection to your error, for that matter. If you understood either, you'd have noticed when I pointed out that armor-sharing is damage-spreading in a team environment. So right there, you should have realized that your sweet rebuttal example didn't refute my argument, unless you're willing to claim that damage spreading doesn't help wins either (a claim that really is implied by your arguments.) So, you're taking a situation where taking fire alongside a teammate isn't possible, and then claiming that it doesn't help people win. Sure; and if nobody has cover, use of cover doesn't help win firefights. Unfortunately, in your haste to produce a "damming" rebuttal, you didn't notice that you've also just implicitly argued that both winning by timeout and by base/resource capture also do not drive wins - both of which are claims you've made before. In fact, if your condition for "falsifying" a concept is that victory can occur without it, then all actions you've so far mentioned are falsified - in every mode but skirmish. At this point, I'm really just wondering which one of you I'm talking to.

You are making an error, which I explained in depth - and which explanation you've ignored, preferring your own straw man to the actual argument made. You're trying to substitute technical language for logical thought - while misspelling words like "whether," and "damning." You're trying to hand-wave away rebuttals you don't like by deliberately misrepresenting them with oversimplification - while demonstrating by oversimplification that you don't know how the logical concepts you're trying to straw man work. But then, you're also using Ayn Rand quotes un-sarcastically, so meaningful self-analysis may not be your strong suit. Sorry for your luck, but it is your inability to even try to rebut the actual argument presented that is damning. Kick rocks, clown shoes - you are found wanting.

PS: here's something for you:

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

“THe hArdeSt tHiNg tO ExpLAIn Is tHe GlARingLy EviDeNT WhICh eVEryBoDy haS dECiDEd NoT tO sEe.” ~Ayn Rand

I fixed it; you're welcome.

[Bombast]

Kubernetes, on 12 August 2019 - 03:41 PM, said:

It's pretty incredible that people are having this debate in 2019. If you're curious how some people can stay at potato level for years on end, here you go.

Well, we're not really debating it at this point.

[Void Angel]

A debate requires one side be able to actually rebut the other's objections. =)

[Wil McCullough]

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.

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.




In video games or in the real world?

[/size]
[left]Now that is a better way of putting things.

Focus fire works, which is the exact reason why armor sharing helps win games. By not sharing armor, your opponents focus their fire by default because half your team are cowering behind cover.

It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to argue that the effectiveness of concentrated fire is why armor sharing isn't valuable.

[KelseyJr]

OmniFail, on 09 August 2019 - 12:03 AM, said:

This post makes claims but provides no evidence though empiricism, reason, or logic that assails any of the premises of the proposed argument.

Still in big brained, bi-polar rage, reptile response mode.

That actually makes no sense from a scientific viewpoint so you're clearly just trolling and using almost random words. The editing of your posts after people respond is also hysterical.

[Prototelis]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 13 August 2019 - 12:24 PM.
unconstructive

[Mystere]

Wil McCullough, on 12 August 2019 - 10:17 PM, said:

Focus fire works, which is the exact reason why armor sharing helps win games. By not sharing armor, your opponents focus their fire by default because half your team are cowering behind cover.

It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to argue that the effectiveness of concentrated fire is why armor sharing isn't valuable.

Do tell where I said armor sharing is not valuable.

[Wil McCullough]

Mystere, on 13 August 2019 - 04:58 PM, said:

Do tell where I said armor sharing is not valuable.

You mean other than the fact that you've been trying to pick fights with people saying it is?

[Ken Harkin]

1. Concentrated fire killing enemies in quick succession


2. Enough off a wall of armour so the enemy's fire is diluted.

[YueFei]

All these tactical geniuses who think armor sharing isn't important should go tell all those Starcraft pro players that they're doing it wrong when they micro and rotate damaged units to the rear and push fresh ones up front.

[MischiefSC]

There's always going to be people who hide in the back and LRM at other peoples locks and because they're the last to die have a good match score and decent KDR while having a statistically neutral or even low W/L. The reality is that sharing armor drives wins and all the statistics prove that out. However if you're the hiding in the back guy you probably want to say that math doesn't really work and everyone is just reading the statistics wrong.

However, this isn't a new topic and the math isn't hard. If you're not presenting yourself as a Target but instead hiding in the back making your teammates present as targets so you can shoot safely, your team is at a disadvantage for having you there.

[Kroete]

Wil McCullough, on 12 August 2019 - 10:17 PM, said:

It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to argue that the effectiveness of concentrated fire is why armor sharing isn't valuable.

If a team does perfect focus fire,
mechs are destroyed in the first team alpha.
Sharing does nothing for wins and has no value in this case.


But we dont have perfect focus fire ...
Armor sharing (showing more mechs) counters spread fire.
Rotating mechs can counter focus fire to some degree,
but also makes the enemy focus more, because less mechs to spread damage.
Where is the break even?
Focusfire will allways drive wins, but does armor sharing too?

MischiefSC, on 14 August 2019 - 08:27 AM, said:

However, this isn't a new topic and the math isn't hard.

I mentioned some cases and ask someone to do the math.
https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6283455
Are you the one? Its easy and can proof your claim.

PS: There are no lrms involved!

Edited by Kroete, 14 August 2019 - 09:10 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Kroete, on 14 August 2019 - 08:27 AM, said:

I mentioned some cases and ask someone to do the math.
https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6283455
Are you the one? Its easy and can proof your claim.

It would take maybe 10 minutes to mock up the math for your theoretical equation, but it would literally just be made up and your equation is too simplified to be statistically relevant.

Armor sharing becomes even more relevant when you start looking at degrading firepower from mechs losing STs and weapons and such from having lost armor more quickly than their enemies.

How about this -

We look at, over the millions and millions of matches, what players and teams have been the most successful. What has proven out over millions of live test cases. Then we look at the top performing examples and see what they tell us.

I mean we can make hypothetical test cases and math them up but the super simple math is this -

What has already been proven to work to win matches. This isn't about stat-shaming but when you have someone with a W/L right around 1.0 saying X or Y doesn't impact winning, then you have a slew of people with a W/L of 1.5 or higher saying X or Y *does* impact winning, that's not a hard one to figure out.

Also super simple math -

Side A has 12 people shooting and taking damage in turn. Side B has 12 people shooting but only 11 people taking damage in turn. Side B is spreading more damage among those 11 people.

[Nightbird]

Don't armor share for the sake of sharing armor, armor share for the sake of shooting at the enemy. If you're not shooting, your team loses.

Snipers and LRM boats don't cause losses because they don't share armor, but because they fail to do damage to the enemy team.

(for LRM boats, effective damage is only 1/3 of their total damage)

[Kroete]

MischiefSC, on 14 August 2019 - 09:00 AM, said:

Also super simple math -

Side A has 12 people shooting and taking damage in turn. Side B has 12 people shooting but only 11 people taking damage in turn. Side B is spreading more damage among those 11 people.

Team a spreading damage over 11 mechs with 12 mechs (1.1 damage recieved for each mech of team b ),
team b spreading damage over 12 mechs with 11 mechs (0.9 damage recieved for each mech of team a),
but one mech of team a gets the damage from 2 mechs (the lrm boat leeches a lock and cant spread).
Team a loses a mech faster because its the only team thats gets focusfired with 1.23 damage against 1.1 damage. After the second loss for team a the snowballing begins ...

But i didnt know we talk about people that dont do focus fire?
And 10 minutes of your time are not worth to proof your claim?

Edited by Kroete, 14 August 2019 - 09:56 AM.

[TheArisen]

Wil McCullough, on 12 August 2019 - 10:17 PM, said:

Focus fire works, which is the exact reason why armor sharing helps win games. By not sharing armor, your opponents focus their fire by default because half your team are cowering behind cover.

It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to argue that the effectiveness of concentrated fire is why armor sharing isn't valuable.

I feel like this should be /thread but oh well.