448 replies to this topic

[Kroete]

More examples would proof some claims,
maybe some would just show us how it would play out with one lance each (to make it simple) with the same mechs. Each mech has 250 armor and 50 damage (lance hit = 200 damage to give chance to rotate back) , the rotating back mech should do and get only 1/2 damage to simulate shilding and staying back.
A lance can only focusfire one target at the same time and no mech thats in the back, if all mechs rotate back there are all at the front again.
Maybe there should be some random numbers put in, like a chance to miss (15%) or only doing half damage (45%) do simulate the wetware?

The 4 cases that should be calculated:
Team a does rotate, team b does not rotate armor, no team is focusfiring.
Team a does rotate, team b does not rotate but only b uses focus fire,
team a does rotate and focusfire, team b dont rotate and focusfire.
team a and b does rotate and focusfire.

Hope this is detaíled enough but stil simple enough to do the math and give some meaningfull result.

I have to leave for a wedding (not mines!) in an hour and iam corious of the outcome.
So let the numbers talk and stop the orange clowning.

Edited by Kroete, 09 August 2019 - 12:33 AM.

[Prototelis]

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.

Who usually wins a 3v1, assuming all opponents are equal?

[The6thMessenger]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 09 August 2019 - 06:11 AM.
unconstructive, replies removed

[RJF Volkodav]

So TS knows how to win matches?

Edited by RJF Volkodav, 09 August 2019 - 02:07 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Yes and no. It's in the best interest of the team to take as little damage as possible and deal as much as possible, but it is also in the best interest of the team to spread out any unavoidable damage as much as possible across the team.

The logic is exactly the same on a, team level as it is with a single mech and components really. It's better to avoid the shot, but if you can't avoid it it's better to spread it across your mech than take it all in one place. Likewise it's better for the team to take less damage, but if damage must be taken its better if more mechs take their part than to lose mechs.

Torso twisting is a valuable skill in mwo because you can't practically avoid all damage. "armor" sharing and rotating in fresh mechs at the front is a valuable tactic because you can't practically avoid enough damage to lose 0 mechs if you don't.

What sharing armor means depends on what the team does though. If everyone is poking from cover then everyone is sharing armor because the level of exposure is equal, but if the team is doing a full expose push or fire line and you're poking, then you are in fact helping the enemy focus their damage. Armor sharing isn't about playing a specific way, it is about agreeing what level of exposure your team should go for. The answer might just as well be for overly aggressive players in a defensive team to reduce exposure as it can be too passive players in an aggressive team to increase it.

[RJF Volkodav]

Sjorpha, on 09 August 2019 - 02:09 AM, said:

Yes and no.

It was a sarcasm According his performance hes defenitely not.
Armor sharing is a must for any type of a game in MWO. The main question is how effectivly you change your armor against the enemies one. Here comes the firepower/positioning/heat management, etc. Hiding behind your team works only against potatoes. If there are couple of adequate people in opposite team it will start snowballing as soon as couple of your "meatshields" are dead.

Sjorpha, on 09 August 2019 - 02:09 AM, said:

What sharing armor means depends on what the team does though. If everyone is poking from cover then everyone is sharing armor because the level of exposure is equal, but if the team is doing a full expose push or fire line and you're poking, then you are in fact helping the enemy focus their damage. Armor sharing isn't about playing a specific way, it is about agreeing what level of exposure your team should go for. The answer might just as well be for overly aggressive players in a defensive team to reduce exposure as it can be too passive players in an aggressive team to increase it.

^ this

Edited by RJF Volkodav, 09 August 2019 - 02:21 AM.

[Prototelis]

Proper rotation/health-pooling drives wins.

Without health pool (mechs) there is no firepower.

[Kodan Black]

It seems like the point you are trying to make is that if one team plays perfectly without receiving any damage and the other team does not play perfectly then the team that played perfectly would be the winner and the better team. Which is both entirely true and painfully obvious. You don't willingly give away your armor to the enemy in the hopes that it helps the team, you recognize that inbound damage is a near certainty and that the proper distribution of said damage is more beneficial than allowing the opposing force to determine where the damage will be distributed. By more evenly spreading out the damage across your mechs you maximize the future damage potential of your own team whereas allowing the enemy to dictate the damage placement would rather obviously mean they would deal the damage in sufficient quantities to remove mechs and thus also remove your team's capacity to do harm unto them.

[denAirwalkerrr]

Absolute truth

[Sergeant Destroy]

OmniWin

[Kamikaze Viking]

OP gets stuck up on wording and not the meaning, despite having it explained clearly by many people in the thread.

News at 11


Sharing armour =/= getting hit and dying.
but getting hit is unavoidable if you are exposing and shooting
Maybe its better to say 'all team members drawing aggro equally' if you can do this without getting hit, more power to ya.

[yrrot]

OmniFail, on 08 August 2019 - 11:20 PM, said:

Look at the big brain on yrrot. The ladies are gonna love you.

That's how I ended up with a kid.

[Sergeant Destroy]

Armor, Armor
When will those dark clouds all disappear
Armor, Armor
Where will it lead us from here
With no lovin' in our souls
And no money in our coats
You can't say we're satisfied
Armor, Armor
You can't say we never tried
Armor, you're beautiful
But ain't it time we say goodbye
Armor, I still love you
Remember all those nights we cried
All the dreams were held so close
Seemed to all go up in smoke
Let me whisper in your ear
Armor, Armor
Where will it lead us from here
Oh, Armor, don't you wish
Oh your kisses still taste sweet
I hate that sadness in your eyes
But Armor
Armor
Ain't it time we said goodbye

With no lovin' in our souls
And no money in our coats
You can't say we're satisfied
Armor, I still love you baby
Everywhere I look I see your eyes
There ain't a woman that comes close to you
Come on baby dry your eyes
Armor, Armor, ain't good to be alive
Armor,Armor, we can't say we never tried

[Alienized]

what alot of people tend to forget: its not a damn shame to get killed first or to get killed in general.

it happens, especially brawlers like me are always going in knowing its a safe death. gotta be opportunistic to make some mechs work which means the fire will be concentrated on said mech.
the least you can do to support that mech is go out and shoot what shoots him.

usually turns out full chaos but heh, War is chaos.
and brawler-lives matter. we start it so you can end it.

[Verilligo]

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.

[OmniFail]

Sjorpha, on 09 August 2019 - 02:09 AM, said:

Yes and no.

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” ~Ayn Rand

[OmniFail]

Kamikaze Viking, on 09 August 2019 - 05:19 AM, said:

OP gets stuck up on wording and not the meaning, despite having it explained clearly by many people in the thread.

News at 11


Sharing armour =/= getting hit and dying.
but getting hit is unavoidable if you are exposing and shooting
Maybe its better to say 'all team members drawing aggro equally' if you can do this without getting hit, more power to ya.

No, no, dear god, no…

You and others are not reading and not thinking

I reiterate my argument and its premises in the simplest form possible. 140 characters or less for the young padwans in attempt to not confuse you or make you read too much.

MWO skirmish matches are won by destroying all enemy mechs.
MWO skirmish matches are won by timing out with the most kills.
Therefore, destroying all enemy mechs or destroying the most enemy mechs before time out drive MWO skirmish wins.

See the simple argument and its two premises above. Having armor only matters in that it keeps your mech from being destroyed. The only thing that drives wins in skirmish matches is premise one and two because they and they alone fulfill win conditions.

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

Yes, Mech 1 will actually perform the win by destroying Mech 3,

Mech 1 FTW!!!!

Edited by OmniFail, 09 August 2019 - 09:14 AM.

[OmniFail]

yrrot, on 09 August 2019 - 05:24 AM, said:

That's how I ended up with a kid.

The kid will be what you will make of it. The you will never make anything of the lady. the lady will make herself.

Sergeant Destroy, on 09 August 2019 - 05:34 AM, said:

Armor, Armor
When will those dark clouds all disappear
Armor, Armor
Where will it lead us from here
With no lovin' in our souls
And no money in our coats
You can't say we're satisfied
Armor, Armor
You can't say we never tried
Armor, you're beautiful
But ain't it time we say goodbye
Armor, I still love you
Remember all those nights we cried
All the dreams were held so close
Seemed to all go up in smoke
Let me whisper in your ear
Armor, Armor
Where will it lead us from here
Oh, Armor, don't you wish
Oh your kisses still taste sweet
I hate that sadness in your eyes
But Armor
Armor
Ain't it time we said goodbye

With no lovin' in our souls
And no money in our coats
You can't say we're satisfied
Armor, I still love you baby
Everywhere I look I see your eyes
There ain't a woman that comes close to you
Come on baby dry your eyes
Armor, Armor, ain't good to be alive
Armor,Armor, we can't say we never tried

Thank you for singing me the song of your people. The Armor People.

I will now have Krayzie Bone sing the song of my people. The Focused Fire People.

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 12 August 2019 - 12:44 PM.
video included inappropriate language

[MisterSomaru]

OmniFail, on 08 August 2019 - 10:20 PM, said:

Yes you win by getting good trades because this facilitates the destroy enemy mechs win condition. Sharing armor is not a win condition and doing it dose not drive wins. Only fulfilling win conditions drives wins.

hi, you're wrong. Playing comp, I find distributing damage across all your mechs instead of sacrificing them is far more effective a way to win.

[OmniFail]

MrSomaru, on 09 August 2019 - 10:03 AM, said:

hi, you're wrong. Playing comp, I find distributing damage across all your mechs instead of sacrificing them is far more effective a way to win.

I have not said anything that supports sacrificing mechs.

Also are you trying to argue that using armor by any team member can trigger a win condition?

Because using armor dose not trigger a win condition, it can only trigger a loss.

Edited by OmniFail, 09 August 2019 - 10:12 AM.