448 replies to this topic

[Kodan Black]

Nightbird, on 14 August 2019 - 09:10 AM, said:

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

While true, LRM boats are also able to cause enemies to hide to break locks and thus the suppression of their own weapons is a benefit to your team. Far too often people want to simply look at damage without considering that there are impacts beyond just the damage. That missile warning making them back up potentially means that the enemy loss of fire on your team exceeds the potential damage output of the LRM weapons. Being actively involved even as an LRM boat means being aware and using your weapons effectively even when damage isn't the outcome.

For instance, sometimes you drop an arty smoke in the way of an enemy and force them to choose between stalling their push for a moment or pushing through and eating damage. Even at zero damage from the arty you've done something.

Edited by Kodan Black, 14 August 2019 - 10:34 AM.

[Shanrak]

Kodan Black, on 14 August 2019 - 10:22 AM, said:

While true, LRM boats are also able to cause enemies to hide to break locks and thus the suppression of their own weapons is a benefit to your team. Far too often people want to simply look at damage without considering that there are impacts beyond just the damage. That missile warning making them back up potentially means that the enemy loss of fire on your team exceeds the potential damage output of the LRM weapons. Being actively involved even as an LRM boat means being aware and using your weapons effectively even when damage isn't the outcome.

Also guess what else forces people to hide and be suppressed? Peppering them with direct fire weapons.

Often I ignore incoming missile warnings because I've already positioned myself to avoid most of the missiles while still being able shoot at targets. Much harder to do if you are being peppered with dakka.

[Mystere]

Wil McCullough, on 13 August 2019 - 05:42 PM, said:

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

This was my very first post for this topic:

Mystere, on 08 August 2019 - 05:30 PM, said:

So is the concentration of firepower.

As such: WUT?

It's not my fault you did not comprehend what that post actually meant. <smh>

Nightbird, on 14 August 2019 - 09:10 AM, said:

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.[/size]

Well, at least this person and others of the same persuasion get it.

Edited by Mystere, 14 August 2019 - 03:44 PM.

[Void Angel]

Shanrak, on 14 August 2019 - 01:23 PM, said:

Also guess what else forces people to hide and be suppressed? Peppering them with direct fire weapons.

Often I ignore incoming missile warnings because I've already positioned myself to avoid most of the missiles while still being able shoot at targets. Much harder to do if you are being peppered with dakka.

Question: "How do you engage the reverse gear on an Assault 'Mech?"

Answer: "Shoot it with a Medium Laser."

Also, I think everyone left on the thread gets it; 'Fail seems to have stuck his tail between his legs and run home. =)

[MW Waldorf Statler]

im seeing lost matches , the only surviving mech in the own team a full armored LRM Mech without backup Weapons vs a 45% Light with only a Small laser.

[MischiefSC]

Kroete, on 14 August 2019 - 09:14 AM, said:

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?

You're trying to shift burden of proof. I'm saying all the people who have been the most successful at winning have the best advice on what leads to winning and the winning teams are best able to identify what does and doesn't win. I'm saying that the behaviors exhibited by the winning teams and most consistently winning players are, in fact, the behaviors that most consistently drive winning.

If you want to prove that armor sharing does not, in fact, contribute to winning and that all the leaderboard data, videos of comp matches and both observable in game behavior and direct suggestions from the most consistent winners at an individual and team levels are in fact wrong you're going to have to pony up proof.

[Bombast]

I see this thread has gotten bad case of LRMitus. Someone summon a mod so they can shoot this thread in the head like a horse with a broken leg.

[Wil McCullough]

Mystere, on 14 August 2019 - 03:33 PM, said:

This was my very first post for this topic:



As such: WUT?

It's not my fault you did not comprehend what that post actually meant. &lt;smh&gt;




Well, at least this person and others of the same persuasion get it.

I don't get it.

You wandered into a debate between the op (who declared that armor sharing doesn't drive wins) and the people tellling him it obviously does, and proceeded to disagree with the latter.

Now you're saying that you've been misunderstood and that you're talking about something completely off tangent (focus fire)?

It's pretty obvious that running into enemy fire for the sake of it isn't going to win games. That's not armor sharing and not what people here understand as armor sharing. I don't believe anyone here discussing armor sharing is dumb enough to think that suiciding into the enemy constitutes the same thing.

You seem to have tried really hard to manufacture something to disagree with.

You have a personal grudge towards some of the people you're disagreeing with or something? Cos you come across as simply trying to take a contrary position for the sake of it.

[Kubernetes]

Kroete, on 14 August 2019 - 09:14 AM, said:

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?

Wtf is this nonsense? Team B can double up but Team A, with 12 shooters, evenly spreads damage across 11 mechs? What kinda weapons are they carrying that allows that? Shoot, even in your pathetic scenario it doesn't matter because an LRM alpha is significantly inferior to a direct fire shot.

Forget the math, how about just paying attention to actual games. Ever played in a group or in CW? Rotating damaged mechs to the back and putting fresh ones forward preserves your team's firepower. Presenting multiple mechs simultaneously decreases the chances of any one getting focused. You don't need calculations to figure that out, you just need to see it on the battlefield.

Edited by Kubernetes, 14 August 2019 - 08:22 PM.

[Feral Clown]

Kubernetes, on 14 August 2019 - 08:20 PM, said:

Wtf is this nonsense? Team B can double up but Team A, with 12 shooters, evenly spreads damage across 11 mechs? What kinda weapons are they carrying that allows that? Shoot, even in your pathetic scenario it doesn't matter because an LRM alpha is significantly inferior to a direct fire shot.

Forget the math, how about just paying attention to actual games. Ever played in a group or in CW? Rotating damaged mechs to the back and putting fresh ones forward preserves your team's firepower. Presenting multiple mechs simultaneously decreases the chances of any one getting focused. You don't need calculations to figure that out, you just need to see it on the battlefield.

Don't forget most yolo q players round corners single file.

[Kroete]

Kubernetes, on 14 August 2019 - 08:20 PM, said:

Wtf is this nonsense? Team B can double up but Team A, with 12 shooters, evenly spreads damage across 11 mechs? What kinda weapons are they carrying that allows that? Shoot, even in your pathetic scenario it doesn't matter because an LRM alpha is significantly inferior to a direct fire shot.

Ask the one that comes with this "simple math" example!
And i used 0.33 damage for the boat.
Maybe read it again, slowly?

Kubernetes, on 14 August 2019 - 08:20 PM, said:

Forget the math, how about just paying attention to actual games. Ever played in a group or in CW? Rotating damaged mechs to the back and putting fresh ones forward preserves your team's firepower. Presenting multiple mechs simultaneously decreases the chances of any one getting focused. You don't need calculations to figure that out, you just need to see it on the battlefield.

Presenting more mech helps against teams with less focusfire,
but does presenting more mechs helps against teams with coms and some discipline and a target caller?

Every mech that rotates back increases focusfire of the enemy because less mechs to shot at.
Focusfire allways helps in wins, but does armorsharing/rotating too?

If 11 mechs rotate back, the 12 mechs is focused down by the enemy team,
so rotating is not helping in wins if too many people rotate back.
Where is the break even point?

If its soooo clearly and simple why all the people just come with anecdotes and assumtions and murican facts,
but noone is able to do a simple proof?
Someone said it would only need 10 minutes to do that but come with the wtf-example above ...

Edited by Kroete, 14 August 2019 - 10:22 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Kroete, on 14 August 2019 - 10:09 PM, said:

Presenting more mech helps against teams with less focusfire,
but does presenting more mechs helps against teams with coms and some discipline and a target caller?

Yes. The target-rich environment places a higher mental load, slowing decisions, and even if they focus one 'Mech they will also take a lot of damage in return. It becomes an even trade instead of one dingus getting zapped by 12 enemies, essentially giving up their 'Mech for free.

Quote

Every mech that rotates back increases focusfire of the enemy because less mechs to shot at.
Focusfire allways helps in wins, but does armorsharing/rotating too?

If 11 mechs rotate back, the 12 mechs is focused down by the enemy team,
so rotating is not helping in wins if too many people rotate back.
Where is the break even point?

That's not how this works.

What happens is you are going to have something like 6 or so 'Mechs that can be at the front line taking the bulk of the damage because the map geography and 'Mech speed/geometry will conspire to constrain how many you can place on that front. Those six will be laying into the enemy's 6, and each side will be cycling a 'Mech back when it has to, so you always have about 6 taking damage; the remaining 6 will be dealing damage from safer positions. Small advantages gained during trading will stack up until the 'Mechs start dying; at this point, the disadvantaged team needs to either really knock out some fantastic trades or change their strategy lest they lose by attrition.

Only imbeciles turn their entire team around and present the enemy with 11 fleeing targets to run over.

[Wil McCullough]

Kroete, on 14 August 2019 - 10:09 PM, said:

Ask the one that comes with this &quot;simple math&quot; example!
And i used 0.33 damage for the boat.
Maybe read it again, slowly?


Presenting more mech helps against teams with less focusfire,
but does presenting more mechs helps against teams with coms and some discipline and a target caller?

Every mech that rotates back increases focusfire of the enemy because less mechs to shot at.
Focusfire allways helps in wins, but does armorsharing/rotating too?

If 11 mechs rotate back, the 12 mechs is focused down by the enemy team,
so rotating is not helping in wins if too many people rotate back.
Where is the break even point?

If its soooo clearly and simple why all the people just come with anecdotes and assumtions and murican facts,
but noone is able to do a simple proof?
Someone said it would only need 10 minutes to do that but come with the wtf-example above ...

So your point is basically - since your opponents are going to focus fire anyway, why not run in one at a time?

Seems like tactically, you're playing for a draw rather than for a win.

[Kroete]

Wil McCullough, on 14 August 2019 - 11:36 PM, said:

So your point is basically - since your opponents are going to focus fire anyway, why not run in one at a time?

Seems like tactically, you're playing for a draw rather than for a win.

Just reread the two questions and you should know what my point is.
Or read the rest of this post, ill give you some hints *.
Dont know why you come with these assumptions i didnt wrote?

Y E O N N E, on 14 August 2019 - 10:23 PM, said:

Yes. The target-rich environment places a higher mental load, slowing decisions, and even if they focus one 'Mech they will also take a lot of damage in return. It becomes an even trade instead of one dingus getting zapped by 12 enemies, essentially giving up their 'Mech for free.

FocusFire and calling targets is about concentrating damage on one mech,
if the caller says shoot a, the team shoots a, doenst matter if there are is a b, c , d or xyz.
Showing more mechs works if the enemy spreads damage over more then one mech but if the team uses a caller and focus fire, it doesnt matter less. The higher mental load is for the caller who has to choose the focus target, but not for the shooters they just follow the call.
The caller makes a mech a "dingus geting zapped by 12 enemys". to use your wording.

The more a team uses focus fire the less the showing more mechs works*.

Y E O N N E, on 14 August 2019 - 10:23 PM, said:

That's not how this works.

What happens is you are going to have something like 6 or so 'Mechs that can be at the front line taking the bulk of the damage because the map geography and 'Mech speed/geometry will conspire to constrain how many you can place on that front. Those six will be laying into the enemy's 6, and each side will be cycling a 'Mech back when it has to, so you always have about 6 taking damage; the remaining 6 will be dealing damage from safer positions. Small advantages gained during trading will stack up until the 'Mechs start dying; at this point, the disadvantaged team needs to either really knock out some fantastic trades or change their strategy lest they lose by attrition.

Only imbeciles turn their entire team around and present the enemy with 11 fleeing targets to run over.

What happens if the 7. is damaged and need to go back?
Does he die because there is noone to rotate and giving the enemy a mech advantage?
Does he still go back to preserve the rest of his mech and firepower and give the enemy an 6/5 advantage on the target numbers?

How many mechs can go in the back if they are damaged to not give the enemy an advantage on target numbers and how does this correlate to focus fire and spread fire?*



PS:
Seems there is a lot missunderstanding with the used terms.
Armor sharing is not matching enough for what we are talking about,
the things are too different to use one term.
We have "showing targets" to counter spread fire but only to some degree focus fire,
we have "rotating mechs" to counter focus fire a little more and letting mechs work longer,
we have "retreating" to preserve firepower and mechs, but giving less targets to the enemy.

But in the end the team that uses the most focus fire will win the match ...

Edited by Kroete, 15 August 2019 - 02:10 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

if I move my little damaged 'Mech' in front of a badly damaged teammate or offer the opponent a more tempting target, I give him the opportunity to protect himself and continue fighting from a rear or flanking position and another goal more for the opponent Naturally, you should not go into survival mode yourself and have to weigh up whether the situation brings something to yourself, the mate and team ... saving an unarmed 'Mech or Suicide Runner will not help.

[Wil McCullough]

Kroete, on 15 August 2019 - 12:09 AM, said:

Just reread the two questions and you should know what my point is.
Or read the rest of this post, ill give you some hints *.
Dont know why you come with these assumptions i didn't wrote?

Oh i know what your point is. Your point is that exposing multiple mechs at a time doesn't work against teams that focus fire so there's no point in exposing to draw fire.

You're also flat out wrong and yeonne has explained why.

Armor sharing is very simply, using your armor as a team resource. You expose and take the hits until you hit a threshold of damage where it becomes more feasible for another teammate to take the damage instead. You then rotate out to the back to preserve your remaining firepower and just take opportunity shots.

The entire point is so that when you trade damage with the opposing team, you get them to expend your team's armor not structure. Because armor doesn't affect performance and structure does. The opposing team will be attempting the same.

No amount of focus fire will let you win if your teammates keep exposing their crit, beaten up mechs instead of letting fresher mechs with available armor take the incoming hits. You'll always lose more robot than your opponent that way. Armor is a resource. And a resource is useless if you hoard it instead of using it.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

Wil McCullough, on 15 August 2019 - 02:34 AM, said:

Oh i know what your point is. Your point is that exposing multiple mechs at a time doesn't work against teams that focus fire so there's no point in exposing to draw fire.

You're also flat out wrong and yeonne has explained why.

Armor sharing is very simply, using your armor as a team resource. You expose and take the hits until you hit a threshold of damage where it becomes more feasible for another teammate to take the damage instead. You then rotate out to the back to preserve your remaining firepower and just take opportunity shots.

The entire point is so that when you trade damage with the opposing team, you get them to expend your team's armor not structure. Because armor doesn't affect performance and structure does. The opposing team will be attempting the same.

No amount of focus fire will let you win if your teammates keep exposing their crit, beaten up mechs instead of letting fresher mechs with available armor take the incoming hits. You'll always lose more robot than your opponent that way. Armor is a resource. And a resource is useless if you hoard it instead of using it.

dude, you're right; but you're also fighting windmills.
some people play "a team based game" to be part of a team - others just like to have 11 meatshields. and by mumbling "I do my part" they try to justify them being a soloplayer in a teamgame.

that being said: that is what QP is for and what you come to expect over the years; you just can't fix the 2nd group. either gp & fw with likeminded people - or a mountain of salt&selfishness in QP.

[Kubernetes]

Kroete, on 14 August 2019 - 10:09 PM, said:

If its soooo clearly and simple why all the people just come with anecdotes and assumtions and murican facts,
but noone is able to do a simple proof?
Someone said it would only need 10 minutes to do that but come with the wtf-example above ...

If I throw a ball, will your mom chase it? Of course, and I don't need math to know it.

"Anecdotes" represent the wisdom and experience of players who have played real games and have observed what happens. You want math, I've got heuristics. Play games where your team coordinates at presenting targets and rotating armor, and then play with teams that don't. All it takes is observation to understand what is happening. You craft theory on paper; I notice what actually takes place in games. Whose approach is working better in MWO?

[OmniFail]

Void Angel, on 12 August 2019 - 05:46 PM, said:

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.)

Sharing and spreading are not synonyms. They are not different sides of the same coin. Don’t take my word for it. Get a dictionary or thesaurus.

Void Angel, on 12 August 2019 - 05:46 PM, said:

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.

This example was a direct refutation of your causation defense. By removing an element from the chain of causation the end result should be different. In this case the win condition. But when removing the armor sharing element the win condition persists proving that armor sharing is not a necessary element.

Void Angel, on 12 August 2019 - 05:46 PM, said:

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.

See premise 5&6 of my original argument.

I did not run with my tail between my legs. I abandoned the argument.

I abandoned the argument because people started changing the meaning of words.
I abandoned the argument because the concept of “armor sharing” does not share a common definition shared by all of it proponents.

Because of the fluidity of the nature of the subject matter because the changing nature of the words used, and the definition of the main topic of discussion and debate are no longer possible.

It is like stopping a tsunami with a butterfly net and I will no longer participate.

Go ahead. Worship cabbages for all I care.

Edited by OmniFail, 15 August 2019 - 01:38 PM.

[Kroete]

OmniFail, on 15 August 2019 - 01:35 PM, said:

It is like stopping a tsunami with a butterfly net and I will no longer participate.

Wellcome in the age of the orange clown, where facts dont matter anymore.


Still dont understand if noone is able to do this simple math, it would proof all the claims,
but i only see excuses why the mathematical proof is not needed ...

Edited by Kroete, 15 August 2019 - 01:44 PM.